Cfitirdi 


. 


THE 


METHODIST  CHURCH  PROPERTY  CASE. 


3£lt?ort  of  tit  Suit  of 

HENRY   B.   BASCOM,    AND  OTHERS, 

vs. 

GEORGE    LANE,    AND'  OTHERS, 


HEAED  BEFORE 


THE  HON.  JUDGES  NELSON  AND  BETTS,  IN  THE  CIRCUIT  COURT,  UNITED  STATES, 
FOR  THE  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  NEW-YORK,  MAY  17-29,  1851. 


BY  R.   SUTTON, 

SPECIAL    AND    CONGRESSIONAL    REPORTER. 


PUBLISHED    BY    LANE    &    SCOTT, 

200  MULBERRY-STREET. 

JOSEPH     LONGKING,     PRINTER. 
1851. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THIS  Report,  which  was  agreed  upon  by  both  parties  to  the 
suit,  is  published,  with  their  common  sanction,  by  the 
Book  Agents  at  New-York  and  Richmond. 


CIRCUIT  COURT,  UNITED  STATES. 

FOR  THE  SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  NEW-YORK. 


THE  HON.  JUDGES  NELSON  AND  BETTS,  PRESIDING. 

HENRY  B.  BASCOM,  and  others, 


In  Equity. 
GEORGE  LANE,  and  others. 

Counsel  for  Plaintiff*, 
ME.  D.  LORD   HON.  REVERDY  JOHNSON,  and  MR.  JOHNSON,  Jr.. 

Counsel  for  Defendants, 
HON.  RUFUS  CHOATE,  MR.  GEORGE  WOOD,  and  MR.  E.  L.  FANCHER. 


FIRST  DAY.— MONDAY,  May  19,  1851. 

MR.  LORD. — MAY  IT  PLEASE  YOUR  HONOURS, — In  opening  a  case  of  this  magnitude 
and  importance,  I  feel  that  it  is  incumbent  on  me  to  give  a  brief  detail  before  reading 
the  papers,  in  order  that  these  papers,  and  the  whole  subject,  may  be  more  easily 
understood.  In  our  ordinary  controversies  we  need  no  such  preliminary ;  but  we 
are  now  investigating  the  concerns  of  a  religious  denomination,  and  this  controversy 
will  relate  to  matters  which  are  not  of  general  information.  The  Court,  therefore, 
will  indulge  me  in  the  endeavour  to  state  some  of  the  general  facts  and  circum- 
stances out  of  which  the  controversy  arises,  particularly  with  the  view  of  having  an 
accurate  definition  of  the  subjects  which  will  constantly  recur  in  the  reading  of 
the  papers. 

The  subject  of  this  controversy  is  what  is  called,  among  gentlemen  of  this  denomi- 
nation, their  "  Book  Concern."  This  is  a  fund  which,  upon  the  papers,  appears  to 
amount  to  some  $750,000.  The  origin  and  history  of  it  seem  to  be  this : — Upon 
the  earliest  establishment  of  the  Methodist  denomination  by  Mr.  Wesley,  he  called 
to  his  aid  the  press  in  the  dissemination  of  religious  truth ;  and  when  Methodism 
was  first  introduced  into  this  country,  books  were  provided  from  England,  to  supply 
the  wants  of  its  very  few  adherents  in  regard  to  religious  literature.  Upon  the 
independence  of  this  country,  the  Methodist  denomination  had  become  measurably 
numerous,  though  not  large.  When  it  was  organized  as  a  separate  Church,  in 
addition  to  the  means  of  instruction  afforded  by  preaching,  it  was  very  obvious  that 
a  great  want  was  to  be  supplied  in  the  furnishing  of  religious  literature  to  its  people ; 
and  one  of  their  preachers  organized  a  system  of  publishing  books  in  this  country. 
It  was  originally  established  in  Philadelphia.  This  preacher,  whose  name  I  think 

1 


was  Cooper,  lent  a  small  sum  of  money  to  the  object,  and  invested  it  in  books. 
They  were  sold  among  the  denomination  ;  and  out  of  the  profits  a  small  capital  was 
gradually  formed,  which  was  employed  in  publishing  books.  This  came  to  be  a 
matter  of  some  magnitude  ;  and  in  the  year  1836  it  had  been  removed  to  this  city, 
and  become  an  extensive  establishment.  It  had  undergone  considerable  vicissitudes  ; 
but  at  that  period  it  was  emerging  from  its  difficulties,  and  becoming  a  great  esta- 
blishment. It  was  then  destroyed  by  fire.  It  was  afterward  reinvigorated,  as 
everything  in  this  city  seems  to  have  been  by  the  fires  of  that  period  ;  and  from  that 
time  to  the  present  it  has  gone  on  with  great  prosperity,  so  that  it  has  accumulated 
a  capital  of  about  $750,000. 

The  manner  in  which  these  books  were  circulated  will  perhaps  be  worthy  of  your 
Honours'  attention  in  the  history  and  consideration  of  this  case.  It  was  early  pro- 
vided that  the  preachers  should  see  that  their  congregations  were  supplied  with 
books.  They  took  the  books  from  the  publishing  establishment,  and  sold  them  :  and 
in  that  way  there  was  in  fact  a  real,  substantial,  and  beneficial  monopoly  in  the  fur- 
nishing of  religious  books,  and  all  the  preachers  were  agents  in  carrying  it  out. 
They  '  ere  very  faithful  men — stimulated,  not  by  the  love  of  gain,  but  by  the  higher 
pu.j.ose  of  religious  devotion.  Of  course,  a  fund  thus  constructed  could  not  but 
become  very  considerable.  Your  Honours  will  have  your  attention  called  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  really  the  result  of  the  devotion  and  sen-ices  of  the  preachers.  It 
was  not,  like  many  charitable  funds,  a  fund  growing  out  of  donations  of  wealthy 
men ;  but  it  was,  in  its  main  features,  the  earnings  of  this  system.  Its  profits,  after 
providing  capital  enough  to  carry  on  its  business  successfully,  were  devoted  at  an 
early  period  to  one  single  purpose  in  two  or  three  branches : — That  purpose  was, 
the  making  up  of  the  deficiencies  in  the  salaries  of  travelling  preachers,  and  provid- 
ing'for  the  supernumerary,  superannuated  preachers,  the  wives  and  children  of 
preachers,  and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  deceased  preachers.  The  number  of 
these  appear  regularly  on  the  Minutes  of  the  General  Conference  of  this  society. 
That,  therefore,  was  the  destination  of  the  profits  of  this  fund ;  for  it  was  no  object 
to  accumulate  capital  for  the  mere  purposes  of  accumulation. 

It  is  now  necessary  that  I  should  introduce  another  subject — the  conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — because  they  become  very  important,  vitally  im- 
portant, to  be  understood  in  this  controversy.  The  concerns  of  the  Methodist 
Church  are  managed  by  what  are  called  Annual  and  General  Conferences.  At  the 
introduction  of  Methodism  into  this  country,  its  preachers  were  not  very  numerous. 
Although  the  extent  of  country  was  great,  there  were  in  all  but  seven  annual  con- 
ferences. I  ought,  perhaps,  to  explain  what  the  annual  conferences  are.  Originally 
all  the  preachers  of  this  denomination  met  every  year,  and  disposed  of  that  which 
was  general  in  their  concerns.  The  conferences  consisted  of  travelling  preachers, 
who  served  particular  districts  of  country,  somewhat  analogous  to  the  division  of 
districts  in  our  judicial  system.  Originally  the  whole  of  Methodism  in  the  United 
States  was  but  one  conference,  and  consisted  of  but  a  small  number  of  preachers. 
In  1784  that  was  the  case.  But  it  very  soon  became  necessary  to  divide  this  con- 
ference. It  was  divided  ;  but,  although  a  division,  in  fact  it  was  a  multiplication 
also.  At  first  the  annual  conference  was  in  fact  the  General  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Church  ;  then  the  earliest  formed  from  this  were  the  Philadelphia  and  New-York 
Conferences.  As  the  territory  increased,  these  annual  conferences  were  divided,  and 
formed  new  bodies  ;  until  in  1844,  which  is  the  period  at  which  we  shall  arrive,  there 
were  something  like  thirty-two  or  thirty-three  annual  conferences.  These  annual 
conferences  had  a  general  oversight  of  the  Churches ;  they  examined  the  character 
of  the  preachers,  the  working  of  the  system,  and  reports  were  yearly  made  to  them 

1* 


of  the  deficiencies  of  the  funds  raised  in  the  districts  to  supply  their  preachers. 
Every  two  years  preachers  were  changed  from  one  congregation  to  another.  Collec- 
tions were  taken  up  in  these  various  congregations  to  supply  the  preachers.  Their 
salaries  were  very  small ;  the  people,  to  a  great  extent,  poor.  Many  of  these  dis- 
tricts could  not  quite  pay  their  preachers.  These  deficiencies  were  reported  to  the 
annual  conferences,  and  supplied  out  of  their  funds.  That  will  show  your  Honour.- 
what  we  mean  when  we  come  to  speak  by-and-by  of  the  "  deficiencies "  of  the 
travelling  preachers.  That  means  the  deficiencies  in  funds  supplied  by  poorer  con- 
gregations to  pay  their  own  preachers  ;  for  it  is  a  part  of  the  economy  of  this  Church 
that  the  richer  portions  of  the  country  should  supply  the  wants  of  the  poorer,  and 
the  clergy  always  be  kept  on  a  footing  of  absolute  equality.  Every  four  years  these 
annual  conferences  met  in  a  General  Conference.  This  General  Conference  was  the 
general  legislative  body  of  this  Church,  and  all  matters  of  general  concern  were  there 
considered.  They  established  articles  of  religion ;  they  made  changes  in  the  religion 
and  economy  of  the  Church.  Every  year  when  they  separated,  they  published  a 
new  book  of  discipline,  which  contained  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  and  that  super- 
seded everything  which  had  gone  before,  and  became  the  law  of  the  Church  as  to 
organization,  discipline,  and  doctrine.  This  was  therefore  the  act  of  the  Church  in 
the  most  absolute  sense.  This  was  the  state  of  things  from  the  organization  of 
Methodism  in  this  country  in  1784,  up  to  1808.  In  1808  the  body  had  become  so 
numerous,  and  its  power  was  so  absolute,  that  the  more  conservative  men  in  the 
Church  were  a  little  alarmed  at  the  extent  of  it ;  because  it  will  appear  in  its  history 
that  it  was  considered  capable  of  changing  the  articles  of  religion,  and  it  was  consi- 
dered dangerous  that  such  a  body,  which  might  be  attended  by  more  members  from 
nearer,  and  less  from  more  distant  conferences,  should  have  such  great  powers.  In 
1808  a  change  was  made  in  the  organization  of  the  General  Conference.  They 
resolved  that  the  General  Conference  should  consist  of  delegations  from  each  annual 
conference.  It  was,  therefore,  the  general  body  of  the  Methodist  Church,  met  toge- 
ther in  the  form  of  its  ministers,  but  only  by  committees.  Instead  of  being  a 
meeting  of  the  whole  absolutely,  it  was  a  meeting  of  the  whole  by  delegations.  At 
that  period  provision  was  made  against  the  absolute  power  which  this  body  possessed, 
and  there  were  various  "  restrictive  rules,"  so  called,  established  to  limit  it.  Those 
restrictions  were  to  this  effect ;  and  the  extent  of  the  powers  of  that  body,  as  it  existed 
before,  and,  indeed,  as  we  say,  continued  to  exist,  will  appear  by  the  character  of 
these  restrictions.  Our  view  of  the  powers  of  that  body  is,  that  they  were  equally 
unlimited  with  those  of  previous  General  Conferences,  except  so  far  as  these  restric- 
tions restrained  them.  One  of  the  restrictions  was,  that  they  should  not  change 
the  articles  of  religion  ;  another  that  they  should  not  change  their  hierarchy  ;  another, 
that  they  should  not  change  the  degree  of  representation.  That  is,  supposing  the 
delegation  be  one  out  of  every  eight  in  the  annual  conferences,  that  ratio  should  not 
be  changed  by  the  General  Conference.  Another  was,  that  they  should  not  change 
what  were  called  the  rules  of  the  United  Societies.  The  United  Societies  are  eccle- 
siastical organizations  of  the  members  of  the  Churches,  with  rules  which  govern 
them  in  their  relations  with  one  another,  with  the  world,  and  in  regard  to  religious 
observances.  It  was  provided  that  the  General  Conference  should  not  make  a 
change  with  regard  to  the  mode  of  trial  of  members  and  preachers  ;  and  the  last,  the 
sixth  restrictive  rule,  (which  is  the  one  which  will  most  come  before  your  Honours' 
attention.)  provided  that  they  should  never  apply  the  profits  of  this  Book  Concern 
to  any  other  purpose  than  that  of  supplying  the  deficiencies  of  the  travelling,  and 
providing  for  the  supernumerary,  superannuated  preachers,  their  wives  and  children, 
and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  such  as  were  deceased.  There  was  one  provision 


over-riding  the  whole — that  upon  the  request  of  three-fourths  of  the  annual  confer- 
ences, sanctioned  by  a  vote  of  the  General  Conference,  these  restrictive  rules  might 
be  varied,  but  without  this  primary  vote  of  the  Church  they  could  not  be  changed. 
That  presents  to  your  Honours  the  subject  of  the  general  and  annual  conferences  ; 
and  a  great  question  in  this  case  will  arise  upon  the  character  and  power  of  the 
General  Conference,  and  the  instruction  and  effect  of  that  sixth  restrictive  rule. 

I  now  come  to  the  particular  controversy  in  this  case.  It  is  one  in  relation  to 
which  the  excitement  at  this  time  and  in  this  country  is  great.  It  grew  out  of  the 
existence  of  slavery.  Very  early  the  Methodists,  both  on  the  subject  of  temperance 
and  of  slavery,  took  a  ground,  the  highest  and  most  exclusive  ;  and  one  of  the  rules 
of  the  United  Societies  (which  are  the  particular,  and  private,  and  domestic  organiza- 
tions of  Churches  composing  the  denomination)  was,  that  no  person  should  belong  to 
them  who  bought  men  and  women  with  the  view  of  reducing  them  to  slavery.  As 
we  suppose,  that  originally  had  reference  to  the  slave-trade  as  a  matter  of  commerce 
•which  was  then  carried  on.  But  very  soon  it  was  evident  that  this  Society  viewed  it 
in  a  larger  aspect,  and  in  one  of  the  earlier  conferences  a  rule  of  a  very  extreme 
character  was  adopted.  It  was  at  a  conference  which  began  at  Baltimore  in  Decem- 
ber, 1784,  which  is  known  as  the  "  Christmas  Conference."  They  adopted  a  rule 
quite  exclusive  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  not  merely  as  to  the  buying  and  selling  of 
men  and  women,  but  in  the  most  severe  form  and  manner,  compelling  the  manumis- 
sion of  slaves.  That  threatened  to  become  so  destructive  to  the  Society,  in  its 
attempts  to  penetrate  the  Southern  and  Western  parts  of  the  country,  which  were 
considered  the  most  open  fields  for  the  operation  of  the  Methodist  principles,  that  at 
the  first  meeting  of  the  conference  afterwards,  the  very  next  year,  the  rule  was 
suspended,  and  in  the  next  book  of  discipline  it  was  omitted.  From  time  to  time 
rules  were  adopted  in  this  Church,  sometimes  of  a  more  stringent,  and  sometimes  of 
a  more  lax  character,  on  the  subject  of  holding  slaves.  The  Church,  North  and 
South,  always  considered  slavery  an  evil ;  that  is,  that  it  would  have  been  better  if 
no  such  thing  had  ever  existed.  They,  however,  treated  it  as  one  of  the  evils  among 
them,  and  conformed  their  religious  discipline  on  the  subject  to  the  laws  of  the 
various  States  ;  so  that  it  was  declared  that  no  person  should  hold  any  office  in  the 
Church  who  did  not  manumit  his  slaves,  when  the  laws  of  his  State  permitted  it.  If 
the  State  did  not  permit  it,  the  holding  of  slaves  was  not  to  be  a  subject  of  official  or 
personal  reproach.  They  provided  also  that  their  preachers  should  teach  the 
members  of  their  Churches  to  instruct  their  slaves  ;  showing  that  they  took  the 
practical  view  of  this  as  a  thing  to  be  dealt  with  as  existing,  and  which  it  was  not 
in  the  power  of  any  man,  or  body  of  men,  clerical  or  lay,  by  their  wishes  to  destroy. 

About  the  year  1836,  the  agitation,  which  has  been  called  "  abolitionism,"  began 
in  this  country.  In  1840,  it  began  seriously  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Methodist 
Church.  In  that  year  a  case  arose  from  one  of  the  Baltimore  Conferences,  which 
gave  very  serious  concern  and  alarm  to  the  conservative  members  of  the  General 
Conference  ;  and  the  bishops  and  conference,  in  their  action  on  it,  gave  it  what  I 
would  call  a  "  go-by."  They  avoided  dealing  with  it  in  its  strength,  and  expressed 
conservative  and  soothing  opinions,  recommending  to  all  the  avoiding  of  any  agitation 
of  so  destructive  and  distressing  a  question.  From  that  time  until  the  meeting  of 
the  General  Conference  in  1844,  this  agitation  raged  among  the  Northern  and  North- 
Western  conferences,  and  had,  of  course,  produced  a  reaction  at  the  South.  In  1844, 
the  thing  became  exceedingly  rife,  and  presented  itself  in  the  General  Conference  of 
that  year  in  a  form  which  was  decisive.  And  it  will  be  one  of  the  objects  of  the 
papers  which  we  shall  read,  and  the  argument  we  shall  present,  to  show  that  a  state 
of  things  occurred  which  made  necessary  the  separation  of  this  Church  into  two  parts. 


It  seems  that  the  Baltimore  Conference,  which  lies  on  a  line  between  the  North 
and  the  South,  took  ground  with  the  more  ultra  persons  in  the  Norths  There  was  a 
preacher  named  Harding,  who,  by  marriage  or  inheritance,  acquired  one  or  two  slaves 
which,  by  the  laws  of  Maryland,  he  could  not  emancipate.  This  circumstance  was 
brought  very  early  to  the  attention  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  connexion 
with  a  vast  number  of  petitions  from  New-England,  Western  New-York,  and  other 
places,  on  the  question  of  slavery.  It  came  up  in  an  appellate  form.  The  Baltimore 
Conference  had  suspended  this  clergyman,  degraded  him,  in  fact,  on  account  of  this 
connexion  with  slavery.  It  was  in  vain  urged  that  his  connexion  with  the  slaves  was 
such  that  he  could  not  manumit  them. 

HON.  REVERDY  JOHNSON. — In  fact  they  were  not  his. 

MR.  LORD. — The  Conference  determined  that  they  would  degrade  him  for  that  con- 
nexion, though  the  slaves  were  not  his.  He  appealed  to  the  General  Conference, 
and  there  the  question  was  discussed  with  great  animation  and  great  ability,  and  the 
sentence  of  degradation  was  confirmed. 

The  matter,  however,  then  took  a  still  graver  aspect.  One  of  tho  bishops,  a 
gentleman  of  Georgia,  was  in  a  somewhat  similar  position.  He  had  one  slave  left 
him,  on  condition  that  he  should  liberate  her  and  send  her  to  Liberia,  with  her 
consent.  But  she  would  not  go  to  Liberia,  and  the  bishop  remained  her  owner.  She 
lived  where  she  pleased,  but  still  remained  legally  a  slave  ;  and,  as  it  was  said,  she 
might  have  been  sold  for  his  debts,  and  he  made  liable  for  her  support.  Ho  also, 
through  inheritance  from  a  former  wife,  had  a  slave  whom  he  could  not  manumit. 
Also  upon  his  second  marriage,  his  lady  had  some  slaves  which  he  could  not 
manumit ;  indeed  they  were  secured  to  her  by  marriage  settlement.  This  was  his 
connexion  with  slavery.  In  every  other  respect  ho  was  blameless.  Everything 
estimable  was  conceded  to  him.  But  the  spirit  of  agitation  was  rife  ;  it  had  been 
warmed  up  in  the  Conference  by  the  debates  on  the  Baltimore  case  ;  and  nothing 
would  do  but  that  this  bishop  should  be  dealt  with.  But  it  was  a  matter  of  some 
delicacy  to  deal  with  the  bishop.  Should  he  be  tried  1  for  there  was  a  provision  for 
the  trial  of  bishops  ;  and  if  he  should  be  tried  and  condemned,  he  would  not  only  be 
degraded  from  the  episcopacy,  but  expelled  from  the  Church.  They  did  not  venture 
to  go  against  this  man  in  that  way.  A  course  was  taken  which,  if  this  had  not  been 
a  religious  body,  sincerely  adherent  to  religious  principles,  (however,  we  may  deem 
them  mistaken,)  would  have  been  regarded  as  debasing.  I  will  not  characterize  it 
otherwise  than  as  a  queer  sort  of  proceeding.  They  resolved  to  request  Bishop 
Andrew  to  desist  from  all  action  as  a  bishop,  during  the  existence  of  his  connexion 
with  slavery  ;  which  was  very  much  the  same  as  if  Congress,  or  any  body  that  should 
assume  to  itself  such  an  office,  should  say  that  one  of  your  Honours  venturing  to  take 
a  little  wine  at  dinner  should  be  requested  never  to  act  as  judge  until  you  chose  to 
abstain.  In  other  words,  without  a  crime  which  could  be  tried,  on  a  matter  of  mere 
expediency  they  requested  this  bishop  to  cease  to  be  a  bishop.  And  it  was  fol- 
lowed up  by  several  circumstances  at  that  Conference,  unintentional  I  am  persuaded, 
which  gave  effect  to  this  degradation,  and  which  are  rarely  to  be  seen  in  such 
cases. 

It  seems  that  after  every  General  Conference  they  republished  their  Discipline, 
Hymn  Book,  and  some  publications  that  were  of  a  character  to  be  renewed.  It  was 
put,  as  a  question,  What  should  become  of  the  name  of  Bishop  Andrew  1  Should 
it  be  put  in  the  Hymn  Book  1  The  vote  of  the  Conference  was  that  it  should ;  so 
that  in  every  Methodist  congregation  there  should  appear  to  the  children,  while 


6 

turning  over  the  leaves  of  the  Hymn  Books  as  their  parents  were  singing,  the  name 
of  Bishop  Andrew.  The  question  would  be,  What  is  the  matter  with  Bishop  An- 
drew ?  In  that  way,  unintentionally,  this  degradation  was  made  in  the  most  con- 
spicuous manner  in  which  I  think  it  could  be.  At  that  period  there  was  a  new 
flection  of  bishops,  and  when  other  Reverend  gentlemen  acted  in  the  consecration, 
Bishop  Andrew,  who  was  on  the  spot,*  a  man  of  unblemished  character,  against 
whom  no  shadow  of  imputation  rested,  was  excluded ;  at  least,  having  been  re- 
quested to  suspend  his  duties,  he  could  not  with  decency  act. 

This,  as  your  Honours  may  see,  was  the  declaration  of  a  permanent  purpose, 
which  it  was  very  evident  to  the  gentlemen  of  the  Southern  Conference,  prevented 
them  from  prosecuting  in  harmony  the  objects  which  the  Church  had  in  view — as 
they  define  it — the  spreading  of  Christian  holiness  over  these  lands  ;  for  it  was  evi- 
dent, these  principles  being  assented  to,  that  this  Church  must  be  extinct  in  the 
Southern  States.  The  gentlemen  from  the  Southern  States  made  a  declaration  to 
the  Conference  of  1844,  that  such  would  be  the  effect  of  these  measures  being  taken. 
They  also  made  a  protest,  which  will  be  presented  and  read,  giving  very  fully  their 
views  on  this  subject.  That  protest  was  followed  by  a  reply  on  the  other  side, 
which  gave  the  views  of  the  majority.  That,  I  presume,  will  also  be  laid  before 
the  Court,  and  you  will  see  whether  or  not  there  had  not  arisen  a  state  of  things  in 
which,  as  the  delegates  of  the  South  expressed  it,  the  Church  was  already  divided. 
This  became  apparent  to  some  gentlemen  of  wisdom  in  that  Conference  ;  and  it  was 
moved  to  appoint  a  committee  for  the  purpose  of  determining  whether  there  could 
not  be  a  division  of  the  Church  into  two  bodies,  so  that  they  might  go  on  separate 
from  each  other,  in  pursuit  of  the  same  objects,  with  the  same  organization,  only,  as 
a  Methodist  writer,  an  English  gentleman,  expressed  it,  "  Whereas  this  year  it  was 
the  province  of  Canterbury,  next  year  it  might  be  the  provinces  of  Canterbury  and 
York."  A  plan  of  division  was  presented,  underwent  discussion,  and  was  adopted 
by  a  large  vote.  It  was  in  substance  this  : — That  if  the  Southern  conferences  should 
find  it  necessary,  they  might  organize  themselves  into  a  separate  and  independent 
Methodist  Church  at  the  South,  and  in  that  event  commissioners  were  appointed  to 
deal  with  regard  to  the  distribution  of  the  funds.  That  was  made  the  occasion,  in 
connexion  with  the  constitutional  scruples  of  some  gentlemen,  of  the  question,  whe- 
ther they  would  have  a  right  to  give  to  the  Southern  body  of  the  Church  their  share 
of  the  Book  Concern  without  an  alteration  of  the  restrictive  articles.  A  provision 
was  made  that  this  fund  should  be  divided,  if  the  sixth  restrictive  article  was 
changed,  and  a  ratio  of  division  was  provided,  and  commissioners  were  appointed  on 
the  part  of  the  Northern  Church  to  act  with  commissioners  from  the  Southern 
Church  to  carry  this  division  into  effect.  They  then  separated.  On  the  separation, 
the  gentlemen  from  the  Southern  conferences  immediately  presented  the  subject  in 
a  general  address  to  the  Southern  conferences,  giving  them  the  details  of  what  had 
happened  in  the  General  Conference,  and  asking  the  Southern  conferences  to  take 
up  the  question  and  say  whether  they  found  it  necessary  to  form  an  independent 
body  or  not.  The  fifteen  or  sixteen  Southern  conferences — sixteen,  I  think,  there 
were — all  united  in  voting  that  it  was  impossible  to  go  on  with  the  Northern  gen- 
tlemen in  this  state  of  things ;  that  the  only  way  of  retaining  the  existence  of  the 
society  in  the  South,  was  by  establishing  a  separate  organization.  They  elected 
delegates  to  meet  at  Louisville  in  1845,  by  whom  this  measure  should  be  considered 
in  general  council.  The  Convention  of  1845  adopted  a  plan  of  a  Southern  organiza- 
tion, and  appointed  a  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Church,  South,  to  be 
held  in  1846.  They  adopted  every  article  of  religion,  every  article  of  doctrine, 
0  This  was  afterwards  shown  to  be  a  misapprehension  of  the  counsel  as  to  this  fact. 


everything  of  discipline,  and  the  organization  of  the  Church,  as  held  by  the  Northern 
Church.  Indeed,  they  took  the  established  Book  of  Discipline,  and  printed  it  anew, 
with  the  same  mode  of  representation,  and  in  every  respect  the  two  were  identical, 
except  that  the  General  Conference,  instead  of  being  one,  was  now  divided  into  two. 
They  appointed  commissioners  to  deal  with  commissioners  from  the  Church,  North, 
with  respect  to  the  division  of  the  common  fund.  When  these  commissioners 
assembled,  this  state  of  things  met  them  :  the  commissioners  of  the  Northern  Church 
had  been  overtaken  by  scruples  as  to  the  constitutionality  of  that  thing,  and  refused 
to  treat  at  all.  The  commissioners  of  the  Southern  Church  deferred  until  their 
Conference  of  1848  met,  which  determined,  after  the  Mississippi  style,  that  the  Con- 
ference of  1844  had  no  power  to  enter  into  this  plan,  and  that  the  Northern  Church 
was  the  only  Church ;  and  that  the  plan  of  the  Southern  Church,  which  had  really 
been  formed  at  the  invitation  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  was  null  and  void, 
and  that  by  that  very  organization  they  had  all  become  seceders ;  that  is  to  say, 
these  fifteen  or  sixteen  conferences  had  ceased  to  be  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  at  all.  They  adopted  an  additional  rule,  which,  I  confess,  always 
seemed  to  be  one  which  nothing  could  sanction,  that  the  supernumerary  and  super- 
annuated preachers,  the  orphans  and  widows  of  preachers,  as  well  as  travelling 
preachers  of  the  Southern  Church,  should  not  partake  of  this  fund  which  had  been 
earned  by  their  common  services,  and  which  was  provided  originally  as  a  reward  to 
those  who  could  work  no  longer,  for  their  past  services.  I  can  understand,  and 
have  often  seen  in  these  controversies,  that  when  the  connexion  is  broken,  it  would 
be  a  misappropriation  of  a  fund,  devoted  to  the  spreading  of  certain  religious  truths, 
to  apply  it  to  the  propagation  of  different  principles,  carried  on  by  a  different  eccle- 
siastical organization ;  but  I  have  not,  to  this  moment,  been  able  to  understand  how 
the  orphans  and  widows  of  the  preachers,  the  old  men  and  supernumeraries  of  that 
Southern  Church,  should  be  excluded  from  participation  in  a  fund  which  they,  and 
their  fathers,  and  husbands,  had  earned.  I  have  not  been  able  to  see  how  it  is  pos- 
sible that  they  can  be  shut  out  from  it  by  that  which  has  taken  place,  even  if  our 
friends  on  the  other  side  should  be  right  on  the  subject  of  secession. 

We  now  claim  in  behalf  of  these  Southern  conferences,  that  this  fund  shall  be  di- 
vided as  to  the  beneficiaries. 

We  also  suppose  it  must  be  divided  as  to  the  trustees.  But  that  is  another 
question.  It  may  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  same  trustees  and  the  beneficiaries  in 
the  Southern  country  be  entitled  to  it ;  but  I  suppose  that  if  we  are  right,  your 
Honours  will  say,  that  the  Southern  Conference,  under  the  circumstances,  has  an 
equal  right  with  the  North  to  appoint  the  trustees — the  persons  by  whom  it  is  to  be 
distributed  ;  that  not  only  should  they  be  entitled  to  the  profits  of  the  fund,  but  also 
to  a  division  of  the  capital,  and  to  appoint  the  trustees  to  manage  the  capital,  or  that 
(hey  should  be  appointed  by  your  Honors  or  nominated  by  the  Southern  conferences. 
This  is  the  whole  question  before  us.  It  is  a  grave  question,  undoubtedly,  in  its 
amount  and  interest,  reaching  not  only  to  this  fund,  but,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  to  the 
stability  and  title  of  every  Methodist  parsonage  or  preaching-house  in  the  Southern 
country,  because,  they  all  being  established  for  the  benefit  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
if  this  is  secession,  I  do  not  see  but  that  the  Methodist  Church  is  exterminated  alto- 
gether in  the  Southern  country. 

If  your  Honours  please,  I  will  now  call  your  attention  to  the  Bill  and  the  Defend- 
dants'  Answer. 

The  bill  is  filed  in  the  name  of  commissioners,  who  have  been  appointed  by  the 
Southern  Church,  and  who  are  preachers  entitled  to  be  beneficiaries  of  this  fund. 
One  of  these  commissioners  has  died  since  his  appointment,  and  we  propose  to  ren- 


8 

der  the  proceedings  perfect  in  respect  to  this  demise  by  substituting,  by  assent,  the 
name  of  another  gentleman  who  has  been  duly  appointed  his  successor. 

The  parties  to  the  bill  are  "  Henry  B.  Bascom,  a  citizen  of  Lexington,  in  the 
State  of  Kentucky  ;  Alexander  L.  P.  Green,  a  citizen  of  Nashville,  in  the  State  of 
Tennessee  ;  Charles  B.  Parsons,  a  citizen  of  Louisville,  in  the  State  of  Kentucky;" 
— these  were  travelling  preachers,  and  they  were  entitled  to  a  share  of  this  fund  ; 
then  there  are  "  John  Kelly,  a  citizen  of  Wilson  County,  in  the  State  of  Tennessee  ; 
James  W.  Allen,  a  citizen  of  Limestone  County,  in  the  State  of  Alabama." — 
these  are  supernumerary  preachers — "  and  John  Tevis,  a  citizen  of  Shelby  County, 
in  the  State  of  Kentucky,''  who  was  a  superannuated  preacher.  Your  Honours  will 
therefore,  that  we  have  all  the  classes  of  beneficiaries,  except  the  widows  and 
orphans. 

The  defendants  are  George  Lane,  Levi  Scott,  George  Peck,  and  Nathan  Bangs, 
citizens  of  the  city  of  New-York,  who  are  the  persons  that  have  in  charge  this 
"  Book  Concern,"  and  it  is  due  both  to  them  and  to  ourselves  that  I  should  say  that 
they  have  not  participated  in  the  heat  to  which  this  case  has  given  rise,  but  have 
deemed  it  necessary  to  remain  inactive,  until  their  course  shall  be  pointed  out  by  the 
determination  of  this  suit.  Of  their  proceedings  we  cannot  complain,  nor  can  they 
be  spoken  of  but  with  respect. 

In  their  bill  "  the  Complainants  state  and  show  to  your  Honourable  Court,  that 
before  and  on  the  8th  day  of  June,  1844,  there  existed  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  a  voluntary  Association,  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  ;  not  incorporated  by  any  legal  enactment,  but  composed 
of  seven  bishops,  four  thousand  eight  hundred  and  twenty-eight  preachers  belonging 
to  the  travelling  connexion  ;  and  in  bishops,  ministers,  and  membership,  about  one 
million  one  hundred  and  nine  thousand  nine  hundred  and  sixty, — then  being  in  the 
United  States,  and  territories  of  the  United  States,  united  and  holden  together  in  one 
organized  body,  by  certain  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals,  and  by  certain  rules  of  gov- 
ernment and  discipline. 

"  That  the  general  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  vested  in 
one  general  body,  called  the  General  Conference,  and  in  certain  subordinate  bodies, 
called  annual  conferences,  and  in  bishops,  and  travelling  ministers  and  preachers  ; 
and  the  great  object  of  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  the  diffusion  of  the 
principles  of  the  Saviour  of  mankind — good  morals,  pure  religion,  piety,  and  holy- 
ness,  among  the  people  of  the  world.  And  the  complainants  allege,  that  the  con- 
stitution, organization,  form  of  government,  and  rules  of  discipline,  as  well  as  the 
articles  of  religion  and  doctrines  of  faith  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were 
of  general  knowledge  and  notoriety,  nevertheless,  for  the  more  particular  informa- 
tion of  the  Court,  they  refer  to  a  printed  volume,  which  will  be  produced  on  the  trial 
of  the  cause,  entitled  '  The  Doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.'  And  the  complainants  allege,  that  differences,  and  disagreements  having 
sprung  up  in  the  Church,  between  what  was  called  by  the  Church  the  Northern  and 
Southern  members,  upon  the  administration  of  the  Church  government,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  ownership  of  slaves  by  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  of  such  a  character, 
and  attended  with  such  consequences,  as  threatened  fearfully  to  impair  the  useful- 
ness of  the  Church,  as  well  as  permanently  to  disturb  its  harmony ;  and  became  and 
was  with  the  members  of  the  Church,  a  question  of  very  grave  and  serious  im- 
portance, whether  a  separation  ought  not  to  take  place  by  some  geographical  bound- 
ary, with  necessary  and  proper  exceptions,  so  as  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
should  thereafter  constitute  two  separate  and  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches. 
And  thereupon  the  complainants  allege,  that  at  a  General  Conference  of  the  Church, 
holden,  according  to  usage  and  discipline,  at  New- York,  on  the  8th  day  of  June,  1844, 
the  following  resolutions  were  duly  and  legally,  and  by  a  majority  of  over  three- 
fourths  of  the  entire  body,  passed ;  which  resolutions  are  herewith  copied,  and  prayed 
to  be  taken  as  part  of  this  bill,  which  are  in  the  words  and  figures,  to  wit  : — 

••  •  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences,  in  General  Con- 
ference assembled,  1.  That  should  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding 
States  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  the  following 


9 

rule  shall  be  observed  with  regard  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  such  connexion  :  All 
the  societies,  stations,  and  conferences  adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  by  a 
vote  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  societies,  stations,  and  conferences,  shall 
remain  under  the  unmolested  pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church  ;  and  the  minis- 
ters of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  in  no  wise  attempt  to  organize  churches 
or  societies  within  the  limits  of  the  Church,  South,  nor  shall  they  attempt  to  exercise 
any  pastorial  oversight  therein  ;  it  being  understood  that  the  ministry  of  the  South 
reciprocally  observe  the  same  rule  in  relation  to  stations,  societies,  and  conferences, 
adhering  by  vote  of  a  majority,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  provided  also, 
that  this  rale  shall  apply  only  to  societies,  stations,  and  conferences,  bordering  on 
the  line  of  division,  and  not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall,  in  all  cases,  be  left  to 
the  care  of  that  Church  within  whose  territory  they  are  situated. 

"  '  2.  That  ministers,  local  and -travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office,  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without 
blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South. 

"  '  3.  Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  all  the  annual  conferences,  in  General  Con- 
ference assembled,  That  we  recommend  to  all  the  annual  conferences,  at  their  first 
approaching  sessions,  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that 
the  first  clause  shall  read  thus,  "  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the 
Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  other  purpose  other  than  for  the 
benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their 
wives,  widows,  and  children,  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  upon 
by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference." 

"  '  4.  That  whenever  the  annual  conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all 
their  members  voting  on  the  third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred  in  the  recommenda- 
tion to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the  Agents  at  New-York  and  Cincinnati 
shall,  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to,  deliver  over  to  any  authorized 
agent  or  appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should-one  be  organized,  all  notes  and  book 
accounts  against  the  ministers,  church-members,  or  citizens,  within  its  boundaries, 
with  authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  that 
said  agents  also  convey  to  aforesaid  agent  or  appointee  of  the  South,  all  the  real 
estate,  and  assign  to  him  all  the  property,  including  presses,  stock,  and  all  right  and 
interest  connected  with  the  Printing  Establishments  at  Charleston,  Richmond,  and 
Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  '  5.  That  when  the  Annual  Conferences  shall  have  approved  the  aforesaid  change 
in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  there  shall  be  transferred  to  the  above  Agent  for  the 
Southern  Church,  so  much  of  the  capital  and  produce  of  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern, as  will,  with  the  notes,  book  accounts,  presses,  &c.,  mentioned  in  the  last 
resolution,  bear  the  same  proportion  to  the  whole  property  of  said  Concern,  that  the 
travelling  preachers  in  the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  travelling  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  division  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  travelling  preachers  in  the  forthcoming  Minutes. 

"  '  6.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the  form  of  annual  payments  of  825,000 
per  annum,  and  specifically  in  stock  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  in  Southern  notes  and 
accounts  due  the  establishment,  and  accruing  after  the  first  transfer  mentioned 
above  ;  and  until  the  payments  are  made,  the  Southern  Church  shall  share  in  all  the. 
net  profits  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the  proportion  that  the  amount  due  them,  or  in 
arrears,  bears  to  all  the  property  of  the  Concern. 

"  '  7.  That  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck,  and  James  B.  Finley,  be,  and  they  are 
hereby  appointed,  commissioners,  to  act  in  concert  with  the  same  number  of  com- 
missioners, appointed  by  the  Southern  organization,  (should  one  be  formed,)  to 
estimate  the  amounts  which  will  fall  due  to  the  South  by  the  preceding  rule,  and 
to  have  full  power  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangements  proposed  with  regard 
to  the  division  of  property,  should  the  separation  take  place.  And  if  by  any  means 
a  vacancy  occurs  in  this  Board  of  Commissioners,  the  Book  Committee  at  New- 
York  shall  fill  said  vacancy. 

"  '  8.  That  whenever  Agents  of  the  Southern  Church  are  clothed  with  legal  au- 
thority or  corporate  power,  to  act  in  the  premises,  the  Agents  at  New-York  are 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  act  in  concert  with  said  Southern  Agents,  so  as  to 
give  the  provisions  of  these  resolutions  a  legally  binding  force. 

"  '  9.  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  meeting-houses, 
parsonages,  colleges,  schools,  conference  funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every  kind,  within 


10 

the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization,  shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up 
on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this  resolution  can  be  of 
force  in  the  premises. 

••  •  10.  That  the  Church  so  formed  in  the  South  shall  have  a  common  right  to  use 
all  the  copy-rights  in  possession  of  the  Book-Concerns  at  New-York  and  Cincinnati, 
at  the  time  of  the  settlement  by  the  commissioners. 

••  •  11.  That  the  Book  Agents  at  New- York  be  directed  to  make  such  compensa- 
t  ion  to  the  conferences  South  for  their  dividend  from  the  Chartered  Fund,  as  the 
commissioners  above,  provided  for  shall  agree  upon. 

"  •  12.  That  the  Bishops  be  respectfully  requested  to  lay  that  part  of  this  report 
requirJBg  the  action  of  the  annual  conferences,  before  them  as  soon  as  possible,  be- 
ginning with  the  New- York  Conference.' 

"  And  the  complainants  allege,  that  the  said  General  Conference  had  full,  com- 
petent, and  lawful  power  and  authority,  to  pass  and  adopt  the  said  resolutions,  and 
each  and  all  of  them,  and  that  the  same  thereby  became  and  were  of  binding  force 
and  validity. 

"  And  the  complainants  further  allege,  that  after  the  adoption  of  the  foregoing 
resolutions,  such  proceedings  were  had  in  the  several  Annual  Conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slave-holding  States  ;  that  a  full  convention 
thereof,  by  delegates,  elected  on  the  basis  of  the  resolutions  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  assembled  at  Louisville,  in  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845  ; 
and  the  said  convention,  after  full  and  mature  consideration,  adopted  the  following 
resolutions,  which  they  pray  may  be  taken  as  part  of  this  bill : — 

"  '  Be  it  resolved  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slave-holding  States,  in  general  convention  as- 
sembled, That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and  necessary,  to  erect  the  annual  conferences 
represented  in  this  convention  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  separate  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at 
present  constituted  ;  and  accordingly  we,  the  delegates  of  said  annual  conferences, 
acting  under  the  provisional  plan  of  separation  adopted  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  do  solemnly  declare  the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised  over  said 
annual  conferences,  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
entirely  dissolved  ;  and  that  said  annual  conferences  shall  be,  and  they  hereby  are 
constituted,  a  separate  ecclesiastical  connexion,  under  the  provisional  plan  of  sepa- 
ration aforesaid,  and  based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
comprehending  the  doctrines  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and  economical  rules 
and  regulations  of  said  Discipline,  except  only  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may  be 
necessary  to  a  distinct  organization,  and  to  be  known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  *  Resolved,  That  we  cannot  abandon  or  compromise  the  principles  of  action 
upon  which  we  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South  ;  nevertheless, 
cherishing  a  sincere  desire  to  maintain  Christian  union  and  fraternal  intercourse  with 
the  Church,  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready,  kindly  and  respectfully,  to  entertain, 
and  duly  and  carefully  consider,  any  proposition  or  plan,  having  for  its  object  the 
union  of  the  two  great  bodies  in  the  North  and  South,  whether  such  proposed  union 
be  jurisdictional  or  connexional.' 

"And  the  complainants  further  allege,  That  afterwards,  viz.,  on  the  second  day 
of  July,  Anno  Domini,  1845,  a  council  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  met  at  New- York,  (which  council  was  composed  of  the  Northern  bishops 
alone,)  and  then  and  there  unanimously  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  which  they 
pray  may  be  taken  as  part  of  this  bill : — 

"  '  Resolved,  That  the  plan  reported  by  the  select  committee  of  nine,  at  the  last 
General  Conference,  and  adopted  by  that  body,  in  regard  to  a  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connexion,  should  such  a  course  be  found  necessary  by  the  annual  conferences  in 
the  slave-holding  States,  is  regarded  by  us  as  of  binding  obligation  in  the  premises, 
so  far  as  our  administration  is  concerned. 

"  '  Resolved,  That,  in  order  to  ascertain  fairly  the  desire  and  purpose  of  those 
societies  bordering  on  the  line  of  division  in  regard  to  their  adherence  to  the  Church 
North  or  South,  due  notice  should  be  given  of  the  time,  place,  and  object  of  the 
meeting  for  the  above  purpose,  at  which  a  chairman  and  secretary  should  be  ap- 
pointed, and  the  sense  of  all  the  members  present  be  ascertained,  and  the  same  be 
forwarded  to  the  bishop  who  may  preside  at  the  ensuing  annual  conferences  ;  or 


11 

forward  to  said  presiding  bishop  a  writen  request  to  be  recognised  and  have  a 
preacher  sent  them,  with  the  names  of  the  majority  appended  thereto.' 

"  And  the  complainants  allege,  That  by  and  in  virtue  of  the  foregoing  proceed- 
ings, the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  as  it  had  existed  before 
the  year  1844,  became  and  was  divided  into  two  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches,  with  distinct  and  independent  powers  and  authority,  composed  of  the  se- 
veral annual  conferences,  charges,  stations,  and  societies,  lying  or  being  situated 
North  and  South  of  the  afore-described  line  of  division. 

"  And  the  complainants  further  allege,  That  by  force  of  the  foregoing  proceed- 
ings, the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  became  and  was  entitled  to  its  propor- 
tion of  all  the  property,  real  and  personal,  and  all  funds  and  effects,  (said  property 
and  funds  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  had  been  obtained  and  collected  by 
voluntary  contribution,  in  which  contribution  the  members  of  the  Church  South  con- 
tributed the  largest  portion  of  the  same,)  which,  up  to  the  time  of  the  separation, 
had  belonged  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  and  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was,  and  is  so  entitled,  without  any  change  or 
alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  above  mentioned ;  but  the  complainants 
allege,  That,  if  the  change  in  the  sixth  restrictive  article  were  necessary  in  order 
that  the  Church,  South,  should  obtain  an  equitable  division  of  the  Church  property,  a 
majority  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  annual  conferences  which 
voted  directly  on  the  question,  in  view  of  a  division  of  the  property,  has  been 
obtained. 

"And  the  complainants  further  say,  That  before  and  on  the  said  8th  day  of  June, 
1844,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  owned  and  possessed 
large  amounts  of  property  in  various  parts  of  the  United  States,  in  addition  to  the 
meeting-houses,  parsonages,  and  other  estates  of  that  description,  and  that  said  pro- 
perty, real  and  personal,  was  in  the  hands  of  the  agents  and  trustees,  being  in  some 
instances  corporations,  but  more  frequently  in  private  and  unincorporated  individuals  : 
That  among  other  descriptions  and  claims  of  property,  there  belonged  to  the  said 
Church,  what  was  denominated  the  '  Book  Concern,'  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
consisting  of  houses,  lots,  machinery,  printing-presses,  book-bindery,  books,  paper, 
debts,  cash,  and  other  articles  of  property,  amounting  in  all  to  about  the  sum  of 
seven  hundred  thousand  dollars,  the  whole  of  which  lands  and  goods,  property  and 
effects,  so  situated,  are  now  in  the  possession  of  the  defendants,  Lane  and  Scott, 
denominated  hereinafter  as  Book  Agents. 

"  And  the  complainants  further  say,  That  after  the  separation  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  into  two  distinct  Churches,  by  virtue  of  the  resolutions  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  and  the  action  of  the  annual  conferences  in  the  South, 
as  hereinbefore  set  forth,  the  Agents  of  the  Book  Concern  at  New- York,  in  pur- 
suance of  the  provisions  and  terms  of  said  resolutions,  paid  to  the  several  annual 
conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  their  proportion  of  profits 
and  income  of  the  Book  Concern,  as  fixed  and  set  apart  by  the  said  agents  for  the 
year  1845.  But  the  complainants  further  allege,  That  since  the  year  1845,  the 
said  agents  have  utterly  refused  to  pay  to  the  said  annual  conferences,  South,  and 
to  complainants,  for  and  on  behalf  of  them,  their  said  just  proportions  of  the  profits 
and  income  of  the  said  Book  Concern,  and  still  continue  to  withhold  the  same  ;  to 
the  manifest  loss  and  injury  of  the  said  Church,  South,  and  in  plain  violation  of  their 
rights.  And  the  complainants  further  say,  That  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Church,  South,  holden  at  Petersburgh,  Virginia,  on  the  day  of  May,  1846,  in  pur- 
suance of,  and  in  compliance  with,  the  aforesaid  resolutions  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  proceeded  to  appoint  the  complainants,  Bascom  and  Green,  together 
with  S.  A.  Latta,  commissioners,  to  meet  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  1844,  and  settle  and  re- 
ceive from  said  commissioners  the  just  proportion  of  the  property  and  effects  due  the 
South,  according  to  the  plan  of  separation,  which  resolutions  are  in  the  words  and 
figures  following,  to  wit,  and  prayed  to  be  taken  as  part  of  this  bill : — 

'• '  1.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That  three  commis- 
sioners be  appointed,  in  accordance  with  the  "  Plan  of  Separation,"  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1844,  to  act  in  concert 
with  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  esti- 
mate the  amount  due  to  the  South,  according  to  the  aforesaid  "  Plan  of  Separation," 


12 

and  to  adjust  and  settle  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  division  of  the  Church  property 
and  funds,  as  provided  for  in  the  said  "  Plan  of  Separation,"  with  full  powers  to  carry 
into  effect  the  whole  arrangement  with  regard  to  said  division. 

••  •  -.  Resolved,  That  the  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
shall  forthwith  notify  the  commissioners  and  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  of  their  appointment  as  aforesaid,  and  of  their  readiness  to  adjust  and 
settle  the  matters  aforesaid  ;  and  should  no  such  settlement  be  effected  before  the 
session  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1848,  said 
commissioners  shall  have  power  and  authority,  for  and  in  behalf  of  this  conference,  to 
attend  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  settle  and 
adjust  all  questions  involving  property  or  funds,  which  may  be  pending  between  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  '  3  Resolved,  That  should  the  commissioners  appointed  by  this  General  Confer- 
ence, after  proper  effort,  fail  to  effect  a  settlement,  as  above,  then,  and  in  that  case, 
they  shall  be,  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  to  take  such  measures  as  may  best 
secure  the  just  and  equitable  claims  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  the 
property  and  funds  aforesaid.' 

"  And  thereupon,  and  under  the  authority  of  said  last-recited  resolutions,  the  said 
Bascom,  Green,  and  Latta  were  duly  appointed  such  commissioners,  and  their  said 
appointment  duly  certified  and  made  known  to  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the 
said  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844.  And  the  said  complainants 
further  say,  that  the  said  Bascom,  Green,  and  Latta,  immediately  after  their  said 
appointments  as  such  commissioners  as  aforesaid,  applied  to  Nathan  Bangs,  George 
Peck,  and  James  B.  Finley,  commissioners  appointed  by  the  seventh  resolution  of 
the  said  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  the  said  Book  Agents  at  New- York,  to  act 
in  concert  with  the  commissioners  appointed  upon  the  part  of  the  South,  to  settle  and 
divide  the  property  belonging  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  between  the 
Church  North  and  the  Church  South,  and  requested  them  to  proceed  to  the  duty 
assigned  them,  by  dividing  the  property,  as  contemplated  and  directed  by  said  reso- 
lution ;  and  that  they,  the  complainants,  Bascom  and  Green,  together  with  the  said 
Latta,  have  repeatedly  called  on  them  since  for  this  purpose ;  but  the  defendants 
have  wholly  failed  and  refused  to  act  in  the  premises,  and  complainants  have  not 
been  enabled,  although  they  have  used  all  honourable  and  fair  means,  to  get  a  settle- 
ment with  them  of  this  unpleasant  question  ;  nor  have  they  been  enabled  to  induce 
the  said  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  nor  the  Church  itself,  nor 
the  commissioners  to  pay  to  the  Church  South  its  proportionate  share  of  said  property 
and  funds,  as  provided  by  said  plan  of  separation. 

"  The  complainants  further  show,  that  since  the  appointment  of  the  said  Samuel 
A.  Latta,  as  one  of  the  Commissioners,  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  say  on  the  day  of  February,  1849,  he,  the  said  Latta, 
hath  resigned  his  office  as  such  commissioner  ;  and  that  they,  the  said  Bascom  and 
Green,  by  virtue  of  and  under  the  authority  of  the  said  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  have  appointed  their  co-complainant,  Parsons, 
to  fill  the  vacancy  of  said  Latta.  And  the  complainants  allege,  that  they  are  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ;  that  they  are  preachers — Kelly  and 
Allen  are  supernumerary,  and  Tevis  superannuated  preachers,  and  belong  to  the 
travelling  connexion  of  said  Church,  South,  and  that,  as  such,  they  have  a  personal 
interest  in  the  real  estate,  personal  property,  debts,  and  funds,  now  holden  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  through  the  said  defendants,  as  agents  and  trustees 
appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Com- 
plainants further  allege,  that  there  are  about  fifteen  hundred  preachers  belonging 
to  the  travelling  connexion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  each  of  whom 
has  a  direct  and  personal  interest  in  the  same  right  with  your  complainants  to  said 
property,  as  above  described,  situated  and  held  as  aforesaid  ;  that  the  great  number 
of  persons  interested  as  aforesaid,  in  the  recovery  sought  by  this  bill,  makes  it  incon- 
venient, indeed,  impossible,  to  bring  them  all  before  the  court  as  complainants  ;  that 
they  are  citizens  of  other  States  than  the  State  of  New-York,  and  their  interests  in 
the  property  in  question  exceeds  two  thousand  dollars. 

"  Complainants  further  allege,  that  the  defendants  are  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  are  preachers  belonging  to  the  travelling  connexion  of  thai 
Church,  and  that  each  of  them  has  a  personal  interest  in  the  said  property  and  funds. 
as  above  described  ;  in  addition  to  which,  the  said  defendants,  Lane  and  Scott,  have 


13 

the  custody  and  control,  by  law,  and  by  virtue  of  their  appointment  as  Agents  of  the 
Book-Concern  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  all 
the  said  property  and  effects  of  said  Book-Concern  above  described.  That  in  addi- 
tion to  these  defendants,  there  are  nearly  thirty-eight  hundred  preachers  belonging  to 
the  travelling  connexion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  each  of  whom  has  an 
interest  in  the  said  property  in  the  same  right,  so  that  it  will  be  impossible,  in  view 
of  attaining  a  just  decision  of  this  controversy,  to  make  all  those  interested,  parties 
to  this  bill. 

"  Complainants  further  allege,  that  the  entire  membership  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  is  about  four  hundred  and  sizty  thousand  five  hundred  and 
fifty-three,  and  that  the  entire  membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is 
about  six  hundred  and  thirty-nine  thousand  and  sixty-six ;  so  that  it  will  be  at  once 
seen  by  the  Honourable  Court,  that  it  is  utterly  impracticable  and  impossible  to 
bring  all  the  parties  in  interest  before  the  Court,  in  this  bill,  either  as  complainants 
or  as  defendants. 

"  And  the  complainants  further  say,  that  they  bring  this  Bill  by  the  authority  and 
under  the  direction  of  the  General  and  the  annual  Conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  for  the  benefit  and  in  behalf  of  the  said  Church,  South, 
and  the  said  General  Conference,  and  for  the  benefit  and  in  behalf  of  all  the  annual 
conferences  in  the  said  Church,  South,  and  of  themselves,  and  of  all  the  preachers 
in  the  travelling  connexion,  and  all  other  ministers  and  members  of  said  Church,  and 
all  others  having  interest  in  the  same  right  in  its  funds  and  property. 

"  To  the  end,  therefore,  and  forasmuch  as  complainants,  and  those  they  represent, 
are  greatly  aggrieved  and  injured  by  the  oppressive  course  pursued  by  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  their  refusal  to  divide  the  said  property  according  to  equity, 
and  in  pursuance  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  so  as  aforesaid  set  forth ;  and  that  com- 
plainants, so  as  aforesaid,  are  without  relief,  except  in  a  Court  of  Equity,  they  pray 
your  Honourable  Court  that  they  may  be  allowed  to  prosecute  this  bill  in  their  own 
behalf,  and  in  behalf  of  all  those  bodies  and  persons  so  interested,  belonging  to  the 
Church,  South,  as  above  set  forth ;  and  that  said  defendants,  by  suitable  process 
directed,  &c.,  commanding,  &c.,  be  made  defendants  to  this  bill,  for  themselves 
and  those  they  represent,  as  agents,  trustees,  and  commissioners,  and  that,  upon 
oath,  they  make  full,  true,  and  perfect  answers  to  each  allegation  in  this  bill  con- 
tained, setting  forth  their  own  rights,  and  the  rights  of  those  under  whom  they  now 
act,  and  have  heretofore  acted,  to  the  end  that  this  Honourable  Court  may  be 
enabled  to  ascertain  the  rights  of  all  the  parties,  and  decree  accordingly. 

"  And  the  complainants  particularly  pray  that  defendants,  Lane  and  Scott,  may 
be  required  to  produce  a  full,  particular,  and  just  account  of  all  the  real  estate,  per- 
sonal estate,  goods,  debts,  money,  and  effects  of  every  sort  or  kind,  now  held  by 
them,  or  either  of  them,  as  agent  or  agents,  trustees,  or  members  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States ;  and  that  the  said  Bangs,  Peck,  and  Finley, 
be  required  to  answer  upon  oath,  whether  they  were  not  appointed  by  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  1844,  held  at  New- York,  commis- 
sioners to  act  upon  the  part  of  the  North,  with  the  commissioners  to  be  appointed 
on  the  part  of  the  South,  in  case  of  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion 
being  formed  by  the  South,  in  the  division  of  the  Church  property,  so  called ;  and 
whether  the  complainants,  Bascom,  Green,  and  Parsons,  and  the  said  Samuel 
A.  Latta,  as  commissioners,  did  not  call  upon  them  for  a  settlement,  and  to  arrange 
the  distribution  of  the  Church  property  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation  ;  and  if 
they  did  not  refuse  so  to  act  in  the  settlement  and  division  of  said  Church  property ; 
and  that  they,  all  the  said  defendants,  also  be  made  to  answer,  all  and  singular, 
the  allegations  and  matters  in  this  bill  set  forth,  as  fully  as  though  the  same  were 
repeated  to  them  in  the  form  of  interrogatories,  and  they  especially  interrogated 
thereto." 

And  then  a  decree  is  prayed,  which  I  need  not  read. 

To  the  bill  of  the  plaintiffs  the  defendants  have  put  in  an  answer. 

Mr.  JOHNSON,  Junior,  and  Mr.  FANCHER,  read  the  answer,  at  the  request  of  Mr. 
LORD,  as  follows  : — 

"  These  defendants  now,  and  at  all  times  hereafter,  saving  and  reserving  to  them- 
selves all,  and  all  manner  of,  advantage  and  benefit  of  exception  to  the  manifold 


14 

errors,  uncertainties,  insufficiencies,  and  other  imperfections,  in  the  plaintiffs'  said 
Bill  of  Complaint  contained,  for  answer  thereunto,  or  unto  so  much  and  such  parts 
thereof  as  they  are  advised  it  is  material  or  necessary  for  them  to  make  answer — 
they  answering,  say: — 

'•That  they  admit,  that  before  and  on  the  8th  day  of  June,  1844,  there  existed, 
and,  as  these  defendants  say,  there  still  exists,  in  the  United  States  of  America,  a 
voluntary  association,  known  as  '  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;'  and,  although 
not  incorporated  in  one  body  by  any  legal  enactment,  yet  the  same  was,  and  is,  a 
duly  organized  evangelical  Church.  And  these  defendants  further  say,  that  although 
•  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  '  is  not  a  body  politic  and  corporate  at  common 
law  ;  yet,  under  the  law  of  pious  and  charitable  uses,  as  protected  and  enforced  in 
courts  of  equity,  it  has  an  organization,  and  performs  functions,  and  exercises  and 
discharges  powers  and  duties,  analagous  to  institutions  strictly  and  legally  incorpo- 
rated ;  and  that  the  said  Church  is,  in  courts  of  equity,  fully  protected  in  the  use 
and  enjoyment  of  such  functions,  powers,  and  duties.  And  these  defendants  admit, 
that  on  the  day  above  mentioned,  the  said  Church  was  composed  of  the  number  of 
bishops  stated  by  the  plaintiffs ;  but  these  defendants  say,  that,  according  to  their 
information  and  belief,  the  plaintiffs  have  not  accurately  stated  the  number  of  tra- 
velling preachers,  ministers,  or  members  belonging  to  the  Church  at  that  time  :  And 
the  defendants  further  admit,  that  the  said  Church  was  united  and  holden  together 
in  one  organized  body,  by  certain  doctrines  of  faith  and  morals,  and  by  certain  rules 
of  government  and  discipline. 

"  These  defendants  further  answering,  say,  that,  exercised  within  the  restrictions 
and  constitutional  powers  contained  in  its  Book  of  Discipline,  the  supreme  govern- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  comprising  the  authority  to  make  rules 
and  regulations  for  the  Church,  limited  by  such  restrictions  and  constitutional 
powers,  was,  and  is,  vested  in  a  delegated  body  called  the  General  Conference  ; 
and  that  there  are  within  the  system  and  polity  of  the  Church,  annual  conferences, 
which,  in  some,  but  not  in  all  respects,  are  bodies  subordinate  to  the  General  Con- 
ference ;  also  quarterly  conferences,  bishops,  presiding  elders,  and  travelling  minis- 
ters, in  whom,  and  in  which  conferences,  respectively,  are  vested  the  powers  and 
authority  specified  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  ;  and,  beyond  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment thus  alluded  to,  these  defendants  deny  the  allegation  of  the  plaintiffs'  bill, 
that  the  general  government  of  the  said  Church  was  or  is  vested  as  therein 
stated. 

"  And  these  defendants  admit,  that  the  plaintiffs  have  partially  stated  the  great 
object  of  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  nevertheless,  the  defendants,  more 
fully  to  set  forth  the  design  of  the  said  Church,  say,  that  it  comprehends  the  exer- 
cise of  its  ecclesiastical  government  and  discipline,  involving  the  itinerancy  of  its 
bishops  and  ministers ;  the  promulgation  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  among  all 
men  ;  the  due  administration  of  Scriptural  ordinances  and  the  holy  sacraments  ;  the 
promotion  of  works  of  piety  and  benevolence  ;  the  revival  and  spread  of  Scriptural 
holiness,  and  the  conversion  of  the  world  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christianity. 

"  And  these  defendants  admit,  that  the  constitution,  organization,  form  of  govern- 
ment, and  rules  of  discipline,  as  well  as  the  articles  of  religion  and  doctrines  of 
faith,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were,  and  are,  of  general  knowledge  and 
notoriety ;  and  are  contained  in  a  printed  volume,  entitled,  '  The  Doctrines  and  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.'  Yet  these  defendants  say,  that  such 
printed  volume — in  this  answer  designated  the  '  Book  of  Discipline ' — has  been, 
according  to  the  forms,  and  in  the  manner  therein  prescribed,  and  at  various  times 
since  the  organization  of  the  said  Church,  altered,  amended,  and  revised,  in  sundry 
particulars,  a  full  and  particular  relation  of  which  would  be  too  extended  to  be  here 
set  forth  ;  but,  for  an  accurate  account  thereof,  these  defendants  crave  leave  to  pro- 
duce, and  refer  to,  a  printed  book,  entitled  'Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline  ;'  also 
the  several  editions  of  the  said  Book  of  Discipline,  published  by  the  agents  for  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  in  the  city  of  New- York. 

"And  these  defendants,  in  respect  of  the  'differences  and  disagreements'  alleged 
by  the  plaintiffs  to  have  '  sprung  up  in  the  Church  between  what  were  called  the 
Northern  and  Southern  members,  upon  the  administration  of  the  Church  government 
with  reference  to  the  ownership  of  slaves  by  the  ministry  of  the  Church,' — answer 
and  say,  that,  according  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge,  information,  and  belief,  no 
auch  differences  or  disagreements  had  sprung  up  in  the  Church  between  the  Northern 


15 

and  Southern  members,  prior  to  the  session  of  the  General  Conference  held  in  the 
city  of  New- York,  in  1844,  attended  with  or  seriously  threatening  the  consequences 
alleged  by  the  plaintiffs. 

"And  these  defendants,  according  to  their  best  knowledge,  information,  and 
belief,  also  deny  that  it  ever,  prior  to  that  session  of  the  General  Conference, 
became,  or  was,  a  question  of  grave  or  serious  importance  with  the  members  of  the 
Church,  or  with  any,  except  a  few  of  them,  whether  a  separation  ought  not  to  take 
place  by  geographical  boundaries,  or  otherwise,  so  as  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  should  thereafter  constitute  two  separate  and  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal 
Churches  ;  or,  that  it  was  '  thereupon,'  as  erroneously  alleged  by  the  plaintiffs,  that 
the  resolutions  which  they  denominate  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  and  which  are  set 
forth  in  their  bill,  were  passed  at  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  held  in  the  city 
of  New- York ;  and  these  defendants  say,  that  then,  and  always  hitherto,  the  greater 
portion  of  the  Church  have  not  thought  there  was  any  sufficient  cause  for  a  separa- 
tion or  division  of  the  Church. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering  with  respect  to  such  differences  and  dis- 
agreements, say,  that  during,  and  subsequent  to,  the  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844,  those  differences  and  disagreements  principally  grew  out  of  the 
voluntary  connexion  of  a  bishop  with  slavery,  and  out  of  the  proceedings  of  that 
body  in  reference  thereto,  hereafter  referred  to ;  that  the  rules  of  the  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, and  the  uniform  action  of  the  General  Conference,  have  always  been  adverse 
to  the  system  of  human  slavery,  it  being  regarded  as  a  great  evil ;  and,  prior  to  the 
session  of  the  General  Conference  in  1844,  the  whole  Church,  by  common  consent, 
united  in  proper  effort  for  the  mitigation  and  final  removal  of  the  evil;  that  the  minis- 
ters have  never  been  allowed  to  hold  slaves,  except  in  instances  under  the  laws  of 
the  slave-holding  States  deemed  to  be  cases  of  necessity ;  that  the  Church  never 
made,  nor  has  its  Book  of  Discipline  ever  contained,  any  law  respecting  the  holding 
of  slaves  by  a  bishop  of  the  Church ;  that  the  General  Conference  have  always  re- 
fused to  elect  a  slave-holder  to  that  office ;  that,  at  the  session  of  the  General  Con- 
ference in  1844,  held  in  the  city  of  New-York,  it  became  known  that  the  Rev.  James 
0.  Andrew,  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  had,  since  his 
election  to  that  office,  become  an  owner  of  slaves, — of  one,  by  bequest ;  of  another, 
by  inheritance ;  and  of  others,  by  his  intermarriage  with  a  lady  in  the  State  of 
Georgia  who  held  a  number  of  slaves  in  her  own  right,  which,  by  the  laws  of  the 
State,  became  the  property  of  her  husband ;  that,  as  will  appear  by  its  printed  Jour- 
nal, (pp.  65-83,)  such  proceedings  were  had  by  that  General  Conference,  upon  the 
admitted  facts  contained  in  a  statement  in  writing  made  by  Bishop  Andrew,  and 
which  was  in  due  form  brought  before  the  Conference  by  one  of  its  standing  com- 
mittees called  the  "  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy,"  whose  duty  it  was  to  inquire 
into  the  conduct  and  administration  of  the  bishops,  and  to  make  report  to  the  Con- 
ference,— as  that  the  following  preamble  and  resolution  were  duly  and  legally  adopt- 
ed by  that  Conference,  to  wit : — 

"  '  Whereas  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated  to 
destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency ;  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has  be- 
come connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise ;  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference,  will  great- 
ly embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if  not 
in  some  places  entirely  prevent  it ;  therefore, 

"  '  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from 
the  exercise  of  his  office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains.' 

"  And  these  defendants,  upon  their  information  and  belief,  further  say,  that  the  adop- 
tion of  this  resolution  gave  offence  to  a  minority  of  the  members  of  that  General 
Conference,  and  who  were  delegates  from  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding 
.States ;  and  principally,  if  not  wholly,  induced  those  delegates  to  present  a  formal 
Protest  against  such  action  of  the  General  Conference,  which  was  admitted  to  record 
on  its  Journal,  and,  with  the  report  in  reference  thereto  of  the  committee  appointed 
by  the  General  Conference  for  that  purpose,  is  appended  to  such  Journal,  (pp.  186- 
210,)  to  all  which  these  defendants  desire  leave  to  refer;  and  which  also  induced 
such  delegations  from  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States  to  present 
to  said  General  Conference  the  declaration  already  referred  to,  which  was  read,  and 
referred  to  a  committee  of  nine,  whose  report  thereon  is  the  so-called  '  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration,' herein  mentioned;  which  declaration  is  recorded  on  page  109  of  the  printed 


16 

Journal  of  the  General  Conference,  and  to  which  also  the  defendants  crave  leave  to 
refer ;  and  which  resolution,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  further  induced  such  de- 
legates, (although  without  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  and  in  no  man- 
sanetioned  oy  any  action  of  that  body,)  immediately  after  the  adjournment  of 
such  General  Conference  of  1844, — before  the  happening  of  the  contingencies  men- 
tioned in  the  so-called  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  necessary  to  give  the  same  effect,  and 
before  such  delegates  had  departed  from  the  city  of  New- York, — to  address  a  circu- 
lar to  their  constituents  and  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church  in  the  slave- 
holdini:  States,  therein  expressing  their  own  opinion  in  favour  of  a  separation  from 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference,  and  advising  the  annual  conferences  with- 
in those  States  to  elect  from  their  own  bodies,  severally,  delegates  to  a  convention 
proposed  by  them  to  be  held  at  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May  following,  to  consider 
and  determine  the  matter;  all  which,  finally  led  those  annual  conferences,  or  por- 
tions of  them,  at  that  convention, — to  withdraw  and  separate  from  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church ; — to  renounce  and  declare  themselves  wholly  absolved  from  its 
jurisdiction,  government,  and  authority,  and  to  institute  a  new  and  distinct  ecclesias- 
tical organization,  separate  from,  and  independent  of,  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  under  the  denomination  of '  The  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,' — which  is  the  same  organization  mentioned  in  said  Bill  of  Com- 
plaint ;  and  the  plaintiffs,  and  all  those  whom  they,  professedly,  represent,  are  adhe- 
rents thereof,  and  are  no  longer  attached  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and 
these  defendants  believe  and  submit,  that  these  proceedings  were,  in  no  part,  autho- 
rized by  the  rules  of  government,  or  the  constitutional  law  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  as  contained  in  its  Book  of  Discipline,  but  were  in  palpable  hostility 
thereto. 

"  These  defendants,  further  answering,  insist  and  submit,  that  the  said  resolution 
of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  instead  of  moving  to  a 
secession,  called  for  due  submission  and  respect  from  all  the  delegates  to  that  con- 
ference, and  all  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church ;  and  the  defendants,  upon 
their  belief,  say,  that  the  same,  and  all  the  proceedings  of  that  body  leading  thereto, 
were  regular,  constitutional  and  valid ;  that  the  voluntary  connexion  of  Bishop  An- 
drew with  slavery  was  justly  considered  by  a  majority  of  said  General  Conference, 
and  by  most  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church,  as  '  improper  conduct ;' 
and  that  every  bishop  is,  by  a  law  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  amenable  to  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  who  are  thereby  declared  to  '  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper 
conduct,  if  they  see  it  necessary;'  and  that  such  resolution  and  proceedings,  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  were  in  due  accordance  with  the  good  government  of  the 
Church. 

"And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  admit,  that  the  resolutions  set  forth  by 
the  plaintiffs,  commencing  at  folio  7  of  their  bill,  were,  at  a  General  Conference  oif 
the  Church,  holden,  according  to  usage  and  discipline,  at  New- York,  passed  on  the 
8th  day  of  June,  1844,  by  a  majority  of  over  three-fourths  of  the  entire  body  ; 
although,  as  these  defendants  state,  such  resolutions  were,  in  respect  of  their  opera- 
tion or  effect,  provisional  and  contingent, — were  occasioned  by,  and  based  upon,  the 
said  declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and  were  intended  only  to  meet  the 
future  emergency  predicted  therein,  should  the  same  arise  ;  and  that  such  resolu- 
tions were  connected  with,  and  preceded  by,  the  statement  and  preamble  embodied 
in  the  report  of  the  said  committee  of  nine,  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  to 
consider  and  report  on  such  declaration, — which  report  was  adopted  by  the  confer- 
ence, as  will  appear  by  its  printed  journal,  (pp.  130,  137,)  and  which  statement  and 
preamble  are  to  be  taken,  in  connexion  with  said  resolutions,  as  a  part  of  said  report 
thus  adopted,  and  to  which  the  defendants  crave  leave  to  refer  as  a  part  of  this 
answer.  But  these  defendants  are  advised  by  counsel,  that  the  said  resolutions, 
embodied  in  such  report  of  the  committee  of  nine,  called  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,' 
were  not  duly  or  legally  passed  ;  and  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  had  no 
competent,  nor  any  valid  power  or  authority  to  pass  or  adopt  the  said  resolutions 
called  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  or  any  or  either  of  them,  except  that  portion  thereof 
comprising  the  recommendation  to  the  annual  conferences  to  change  the  sixth 
restrictive  rule :  and  these  defendants  are  also  advised  by  counsel,  that  the  last- 
named  resolutions,  when  adopted,  were  null  and  void,  and  without  any  binding 
force  or  validity,  except  in  the  matter  of  such  recommendation  merely  ;  and  these 
defendants  therefore  humbly  submit  these  questions  to  this  Honourable  Court :  and  to 


17 

show  the  extent  of  the  constitutional  power  of  the  said  General  Conference  in  this 
respect,  these  defendants  state, — 

"  That  from  the  ordination  and  election  of  the  first  bishops  of  the  Church,  in  1784, 
to  the  year  1808,  the  General  Conference  was  composed  of  all  the  preachers  in  the 
connexion  who  had  travelled  four  years  from  the  time  they  were  received  by  an 
annual  conference  ;  but  in  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  on  the  recommendation 
of  a  majority  of  the  annual  conferences  severally  acting  in  their  primary  capacities. 
it  was  proposed  to  do  away  with  such  general  assembly  of  ministers,  and  to  organize 
a  delegated  General  Conference,  to  consist  of  a  delegated  number,  to  be  elected  by 
the  several  annual  conferences,  according  to  a  fixed  ratio  of  representation  ;  which 
proposition  was  agreed  to  in  said  general  convention  of  1808,  upon  the  condition  of 
adopting  certain  articles  to  restrict  the  powers  of  the  future  delegated  General  Con- 
ferences ;  whereupon  a  constitution  for  the  government  of  the  General  Conference, 
embracing  six  restrictive  articles,  was  accordingly  established,  de-fining  who  shall 
compose  the  General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regulations  and  powers  belonging 
to  it ;  and  the  whole  body  of  .preachers,  then  assembled  in  general  convention, 
adopted,  by  such  constitution,  the  present  plan  for  a  delegated  General  Conference  ; 
transferring  to  them  the  powers  of  the  whole  body  of  preachers,  with  the  express 
exceptions  and  limitations  specified  in  such  restrictive  articles  ;  which  constitution 
and  restrictive  articles  the  defendants  pray  may  be  taken  as  a  part  of  this  answer,  as 
if  here  set  forth ;  and  for  the  contents  of  the  same,  and  for  the  particulars  of  these 
facts  and  allegations,  these  defendants  crave  leave  to  produce  and  refer  to  the  said 
constitution  and  restrictive  articles,  contained  in  the  Book  of  Discipline  for  1808, 
pp.  14,  15  ;  also  the  subsequent  editions  of  the  '  Discipline  ;'  also  '  Emory's  Plistory 
of  the  Discipline,'  pp.  111-113;  also  'Bangs'  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,'  vol.  ii,  pp.  225-234  :— 

"  That  such  constitution  and  restrictive  rales,  thus  adopted, — containing  a  general 
grant  of  all  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the  Church, 
under  the  restraints  and  within  the  limitations  therein  embodied, — constituted  the 
paramount  law  of  the  Church ;  and  have  always  been  so  considered,  as  well  by  the 
delegated  General  Conferences,  whose  legislative  action  they  were  intended  to 
regulate,  as  by  the  annual  conferences,  the  bishops,  ministers,  and  members  of  the 
Church,  whose  rights  and  privileges  were  secured  thereby  ;  nor  have  the  delegated 
General  Conference  ever  had,  or  claimed,  any  power  to  alter  or  amend  these  restric- 
tive articles  except  in  the  manner  therein  prescribed,  in  conjunction  with  the  consti- 
tutional majority  and  action  of  the  annual  conferences ;  nor  have  any  alterations 
thereof  ever  been  made,  except  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  contained  therein 
for  such  alterations  ;  and  never  without  such  constitutional  majority  and  assent  of 
the  several  annual  conferences,  voting  thereon  in  their  primary  capacities : — 

"That  this  constitution,  embodying  these  restrictive  articles,  is  still — and  during 
the  session  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the 
resolutions  called  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  was — the  fundamental  law  of  the 
Church,  as  will  be  seen  on  reference  to  the  Book  of  Discipline,  pp.  21-23,  edition  of 
1844  ;  that  the  General  Conference  is  the  representative  body  above  mentioned  with 
powers  limited  as  aforesaid,  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  government  of  the 
Church.  And  these  defendants,  as  they  are  further  advised  by  counsel,  believe  and 
submit,  that  these  restrictive  articles  limit  and  restrain  the  exercise  of  the  powers  of 
the  General  Conference  to  the  enactment  of  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  to 
carry  on  throughout  the  whole  work,  the  economy  and  purposes  of  its  government, 
as  already  settled  ;  prohibiting  any  change  or  alteration  in  any  part  or  rule  of  such 
government,  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  the  itinerant 
general  superintendency  of  the  Church  ;  that  they  prohibit  the  exercise  of  any 
power  by  the  General  Conference  to  do  away  the  privileges  of  the  ministers, 
preachers,  or  members,  of  trial  by  a  committee,  or  before  the  society,  and  of  an 
appeal  ;  and  also  prohibit  the  General  Conference,  without  the  consent  of  three- 
fourths  of  the  whole  body  of  ministers,  to  be  expressed  in  their  several  annual  confer- 
ences, from  appropriating  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  or  Chartered  Fund,  to  any 
purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  preachers  belonging  to  the  travelling 
connexion  of  the  Church,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children.  And  the  defendants, 
therefore,  further  submit  to  this  Honourable  Court,  whether  the  said  resolutions, 
denominated  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  are  not,  in  each  and  every  of  these 
particulars,  inconsistent  with,  and  subversive  of,  said  constitutional  law  of  the 

2 


18 

Church,  and  in  contravention  of  the  limitations  contained  in  the  aforesaid  restrictive 
articles. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  submit,  as  further  advised  by  counsel, 
that  even  had  the  so-called  'Plan  of  Separation'  been  constitutional,  or  valid,  it  mere- 
ly provided  a  prospective  plan,  which,  without  the  happening  of  certain  future  con- 
or  on  the  failure  of  which  conditions,  or  either  of  them,  could  never  have, 
xpress  terms,  and,  as  defendants  say,  was  never  intended  to  have,  any  force 
or  validity.  And  these  defendants  expressly  aver  that  these  conditions  have  not 
happened ;  and  they  therefore  further  insist  and  submit,  that  the  said  so-called  '  Plan 
.  >f  Separation'  has  always  been  inoperative ;  has  never  had  any  force  or  validity ;  and 
is  absolutely  null  and  void. 

••  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  say,  that  the  so-called  'Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration,' whether  constitutional  or  not,  was  never  ratified  by  the  annual  conferences 
Therein  named;  and  therefore  gave  the  Southern  annual  conferences  no  authority  to 
act  in  the  premises ;  and  hence,  as  the  defendants  submit  .and  insist,  the  Southern 
annual  conferences  have,  in  all  respects,  as  to  the  Church,  South,  acted  on  their  own 
responsibility,  without  any  authority  from  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  say,  that  they  admit  the  resolutions 
set  forth  by  the  plaintiffs,  commencing  at  folio  20  of  their  bill,  were  adopted  at  a 
convention  of  delegates  from  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States,  assem- 
bled at  Louisville,  in  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845;  but  these  defendants 
deny,  that  the  delegates  composing  that  convention  were  elected  on  the  basis,  or  ac- 
cording to  the  authority,  of  said  provisional  'Plan  of  Separation,'  so  called,  or  of 
any  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844;  and  especially  do  these  defend- 
ants deny,  that  said  Louisville  Convention,  in  adopting  their  said  resolutions,  or  in 
any  proceedings  had  therein,  acted  under  the  provisional  '  Plan  of  Separation,' 
adopted  by  that  General  Conference,  as  is  stated  in  one  of  such  resolutions ;  but,  on 
the  contrary  thereof,  these  defendants  say,  that  said  provisional  plan  did  not  confer 
any  authority  upon  that  convention  to  adopt  their  said  resolutions — to  organize  the 
new  ecclesiastical  connexion  therein  mentioned — or  to  dismember  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church;  and,  further,  that  the  said  convention  was  not  convened  by,  or  in  pur- 
suance of,  any  constitutional  authority  of  that  Church,  or  of  its  General  Conference ; 
and  also,  that  the  proceedings  leading  to,  and  the  transactions  of,  the  said  Louisville 
Convention,  and  which  resulted  in  the  organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  were  occasioned  and  had,  by  such  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States,  as  have  attached  themselves  to 
the  said  Church,  South,  upon  their  own  responsibility,  and  by  their  own  unauthorized 
hilst  they  repudiate  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church — they  refusing,  and  declaring  their  refusal,  to  submit  to  such 
authority ;  and  that  by  revolutionary  measures,  tending  to  the  dismemberment  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  by  insubordinate  proceedings,  unwarranted  by  said 
'  Plan  of  Separation,'  so  called,  or  by  any  authority  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  they  did  institute  the  said  '  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  as  an  inde- 
pendent ecclesiastical  organization,  separate  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  did  solemnly  declare  such  juris- 
diction over  them  entirely  dissolved.  And,  for  some  of  the  particulars  of  these  facts 
and  allegations,  these  defendants  ask  leave  to  refer  to  the  aforesaid  declaration,  pre- 
sented on  the  5th  June,  1844,  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  at  its  session  in  New- York,  signed  by  fifty-one  of  the  delegates  in  that  con- 
ference from  slave-holding  States,  and  who  are  now  attached  to  said  Church,  South ; 
which  Declaration  is  recorded  in  the  Journal  of  said  General  Conference,  page  109; 
also  to  the  '  Protest  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,'  hereinbefore  referred  to,  presented 
to  said  General  Conference  on  the  6th  day  of  said  June,  signed  by  such  delegates 
•ind  others,  now  attached  to  said  Church,  South ;  also  to  the  address  to  their  consti- 
tuents, the  resolutions  and  proceedings  of  such  delegates  at  their  meeting  in  the  city 
of  New-York,  on  the  llth  June,  1844;  also  to  the  correspondence  between  Bishop 
Soule  and  Bishop  Andrew,  involving  the  request  of  the  former  to  the  latter,  that  he 
should  resume  his  episcopal  functions,  and  his  acceptance  of  that  request,  notwith- 
standing the  aforesaid  resolution  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  his  case; 
also  to  the  proceedings  of  said  Louisville  Convention ;  and  also  to  the  proceedings 
of  the  body  assuming  to  be  a  General  Conference  composed  of  delegates  from  annual 
conferences  attached  to  said  Church,  South,  held  at  Petersburg,  Va.,  in  May,  1846. 

2* 


19 

Wherefore,  these  defendants  insist  and  submit,  that  the  '  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,'  exists  as  a  separate  ecclesiastical  communion,  solely  by  the  result,  and  in 
virtue,  of  the  acts  and  doings  of  the  individual  bishops,  ministers,  and  members 
attached  to  such  Church,  South,  proceeding  in  the  premises  upon  their  own  respon- 
sibility ;  and  that  such  bishops,  ministers,  and  members,  have  voluntarily  withdrawn 
themselves  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  have  renounced  all  their  rights 
and  privileges  in  her  communion  and  under  her  government.  And  these  defendants 
deny  that  the  annual  conferences  represented  in  said  Louisville  Convention,  were,  as 
is  erroneously  stated  in  the  first  of  the  resolutions  of  the  convention  set  forth  by  the 
plaintiffs,  constituted  a  separate  ecclesiastical  connexion  under  the  provisional  '  Plan 
of  Separation,'  so  called,  aforesaid. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  admit,  that  at  the  time  and  place  in  that 
behalf  mentioned  by  the  plaintiffs,  a  council  of  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  called  by  the  plaintiffs  '  Northern  Bishops,'  met  and  unanimously  adopted 
the  resolutions  commencing  at  folio  24  of  the  said  bill ;  but  these  defendants  say,  that 
the  same  were,  as  well  by  the  express  terms  thereof,  as  by  the  extent  of  any  autho- 
rity possessed  by  such  council,  or  bishops,  limited  in  their  application  and  effect  to  the 
administration  of  the  said  bishops  ;  which  administration  was,  at  that  time,  inter- 
rupted, resisted  and  prevented,  in  the  slave-holding  States,  by  such  portion  of  the 
revolutionary  measures  above  alluded  to  as  had  then  occurred,  and  by  kindred 
measures  of  some  of  the  present  adherents  of  said  Church,  South.  Moreover,  these 
defendants  further  state,  that  said  bishops  were  amenable  to  the  General  Conference, 
who  have  power  to  inquire  into  their  administration,  and  expel  them  for  "  improper 
conduct,"  if  they  see  it  necessary  ;  that  the  said  provisional  Plan  was  an  act  of  the 
General  Conference,  to  whom  said  bishops  were  amenable  ;  and  that  the  General 
Conference  had  not  then  declared  the  said  provisional  Plan  null  and  void.  But  these 
defendants,  with  respect  to  those  resolutions  of  the  bishops,  submit,  that  they  can  have 
no  influence  or  effect  whatever  upon  the  question  of  the  alleged  division  of  the  Church  ; 
nor  can  any  effect  or  virtue  be  attached  to  their  acts  or  resolutions,  tending  to  divide 
or  dismember  the  Church,  or  to  warrant,  in  any  sense,  the  allegation  of  the  plaintiffs, 
that  by,  or  in  virtue  of,  such  resolutions, — in  conjunction  with  such  other  proceedings 
as  are  alleged  by  the  plaintiffs,  or  otherwise, — the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ever 
became  divided  into  two  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches. 

And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  deny,  that,  by  or  in  virtue  of  the  proceed- 
ings alleged  in  the  said  Bill  of  Complaint,  or  of  any  part  thereof,  or  otherwise  how- 
soever, '  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  '  in  the  United  States,  as  it  had  existed 
before  the  year  1844,  or  as  it  at  any  time  existed,  was  lawfully  divided  into  two 
distinct  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  in  the  manner  alleged  in  said  bill,  or  in  any 
other  manner  whatever.  And  these  defendants  submit,  that  the  separation  and 
voluntary  withdrawal  from  the  Church  of  a  portion  of  her  bishops,  ministers,  and 
members,  as  herein  mentioned,  was  an  unauthorized  separation  from  the  Church. 

"And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  say,  that  the  so-called  '  Plan  of  Separation' 
was  wholly  prospective  and  contingent  in  its  provisions  ;  and  that  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844  adopted  the  said  provisional  Plan  in  view  of,  and  based  the  same 
entirely  upon,  the  declaration  of  the  delegates  from  the  annual  conferences  in  the 
slave-holding  States  hereinbefore  mentioned,  which  alleged  that  certain  acts  of  the 
General  Conference  therein  referred  to,  especially  the  act  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  must  produce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South  which  would  render  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  General  Conference  over  those  conferences,  incon- 
sistent with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slave-holding  States  ;  and,  therefore, 
the  General  Conference,  by  the  said  Plan,  made  provision  for  the  adjustment  of 
relations  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  her  separating  ministers  and 
members,  to  meet  the  emergency  which  might  arise  in  the  event  of  the  contingency 
thus  predicted  in  such  declaration,  when  a  separation  should  occur  by  the  act  and 
deed  of  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States,  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case.  And  these  defendants  are  informed  and  believe,  and  therefore  state,  that, 
independent  of  the  aforesaid  proceedings  of  the  Southern  delegates,  which  contri- 
buted to  such  separation,  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference  alone,  and  which  are 
thus  complained  of,  did  not  produce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South  which  rendered  a 
continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  aforesaid  '  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the 
ministry  in  the  slave-holding  States  ;'  nor  was  the  separation  of  the  ministers  and 
members  now  composing  the  Southern  Church,  occasioned  solely  because  the  annual 


20 

conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States  found  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct  eccle- 
siastical connexion  ;  but  the  way  for  such  separation  was  prepared,  and  the  same 
was  superinduced  and  consummated,  by  the  revolutionary  measures  hereinbefore 
referred  to,  and  which  were  begun  at  the  seat,  and  nearly  at  the  time,  of  the  session 
of  the  said  General  Conference,  before  the  predicted  state  of  things  in  the  South  was, 
or  possibly  could  be,  produced  by  any  acts  of  the  General  Conference. 

"  Also,  that  the  General  Conference,  by  said  provisional  Plan,  proposed,  in  the  event 
of  the  happening  of  the  contingencies  therein  mentioned,  regulations  to  be  mutually 
observed  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  the  one  part,  and  the  prospective 
new  Church  and  the  ministers  and  members  thereof,  on  the  other  part,  with  respect 
to  the  '  Northern  boundary '  of  such  new  Church,  which  required  that  such  Northern 
boundary  should  be  fixed  at  the  Northern  extremities  of  those  '  societies,  stations,  and 
conferences,'  a  majority  of  whose  members  should,  of  their  own  free  will  and  accord, 
vote  to  adhere  to  the  said  Southern  Church  ;  the  due  observance  of  which  regula- 
tions was,  as  these  defendants  insist  and  submit,  a  fundamental  condition  of  said 
provisional  plan.  And  these  defendants,  as  they  are  informed  and  believe,  state,  that 
in  this  respect  the  said  provisional  Plan  has  been  violated  by  the  said  Church,  South, 
and  by  the  said  separating  bishops,  ministers,  and  members  now  attached  thereto,  more 
particularly  in  the  instances  following  : — The  said  bishops,  Andrew  and  Soule,  since 
said  Southern  organization,  stationed  preachers  in  Cincinnati,  within  the  territory  of  the 
Ohio  Annual  Conference  ;  and  in  Northampton  county,  Virginia,  within  the  district  of 
the  Philadelphia  Annual  Conference  ;  both  which  annual  conferences  have  always 
remained  attached  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  the  aforesaid  body, 
acting  as  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  sanctioned  these  doings  of 
said  bishops,  and  also  authorized  the  Virginia  Annual  Conference,  which  is  claimed 
as  a  member  of  the  Church,  South,  to  send  ministers  into  the  territory  of  the  Balti- 
more Annual  Conference,  which  is  still  attached  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
And  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  bishops,  ministers,  and 
members  attached  thereto,  as  thus  stated,  have  violated  and  disregarded  said 
so-called  Plan. 

"  Also,  that  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  its 
session  held  at  Pittsburgh,  Pa.,  in  May,  1848, — having,  as  these  defendants  submit, 
and  as  they,  according  to  their  judgment  and  belief,  state,  full  power  and  rightful 
authority  so  to  do, — did  find  and  declare,  that  the  fundamental  conditions  of  said 
proposed  Plan,  so-called,  had  severally  failed  ;  that  the  failure  of  either  of  them, 
separately,  was  sufficient  to  render  said  so-called  Plan  null  and  void  ;  and  that  the 
practical  workings  of  said  so-called  Plan  were  incompatible  with  the  great  constitu- 
tional provisions  contained  in  said  Book  of  Discipline  ;  and  they,  the  said  General 
Conference,  did  also  find  and  declare,  the  whole  and  every  part  of  said  provisional 
Plan,  so-called,  to  be  null  and  void.  And  for  the  particulars  hereof,  these  defend- 
ants desire  leave  to  refer  to  the  proceedings  of,  and  reports  adopted  by,  said  General 
Conference  of  1848  ;  especially  to  its  printed  journal,  pp.  73-85,  129,  130,  and  the 
Final  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  adopted  by  said  Con- 
ference, and  appended  to  its  journal,  pp.  154-164. 

"Also,  that  the  so-called  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  in  no  event  authorized  a  division, 
or  reorganization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  separate  Churches  ; 
but  provided  regulations  to  be  observed,  on  the  happening  of  the  contingencies 
named  in  the  so-called  Plan,  should  the  Southern  annual  conferences,  on  their  own 
responsibility,  withdraw  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  unite  in  a  dis- 
tinct confederation. 

"  Wherefore,  these  defendants  further  insist  and  submit,  that — instead  of  the 
division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  distinct  Churches,  under  and  in 
pursuance  of  said  so-called  Plan  of  Separation,  as  is  alleged  by  the  plaintiffs — all 
those  bishops,  ministers,  and  members,  who  have  attached  themselves,  by  their  own 
act  and  deed,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  including  the  plaintiffs, 
and  all  those  represented  in  or  by  them  in  said  Bill  of  Complaint,  have  voluntarily 
withdrawn  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  separated  themselves  from  its 
privileges  and  government ;  and  have  thereby  renounced  and  forfeited  all  right  and 
claim,  at  law  or  in  equity,  to  any  portion  of  the  funds  and  property  in  question  in 
this  cause. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  deny  that,  by  force  of  the  proceedings 
alleged  by  the  plaintiffs,  or  otherwise,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 


21 

became,  was,  or  is  entitled,  at  law  or  in  equity,  to  any  proportion  of  all,  or  any  of, 
the  property,  real  or  personal,  or  of  all  or  any  of  the  funds  or  effects,  which,  up  to 
the  time  of  the  separation,  or  any  other  time,  belonged  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  the  United  States,  or  elsewhere  ;  and  especially  do  these  defendants  deny, 
that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  was,  or  is  so  entitled  to  any  produce 
of  the  Book  Concern  or  Chartered  Fund,  or  any  property  or  funds  pertaining  thereto, 
without  any  change  or  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  above  mentioned ;  or 
that,  as  erroneously  alleged  by  the  plaintiffs,  a  majority  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  several  annual  conferences  which  voted  directly  on  the  question  in  view  of 
a  division  of  the  property,  has  been  obtained,  infavour  of  any  alteration  of  that  article. 

"  And  these  defendants,  with  respect  to  the  allegation  of  the  plaintiffs,  that  '  said 
property  and  funds  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  been  obtained  and  col- 
lected by  voluntary  contribution,  in  which  contribution  the  members  of  the  Church, 
South,  contributed  the  largest  portion  of  the  same,"  deny,  that,  so  far  as  the  allega- 
tion has  reference  to  the  property  and  funds  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the  city  of 
New-York,  and  its  appendages,  the  same,  or  the  greater  portion  thereof,  have  been 
obtained  by  voluntary  contribution  ;  and  the  defendants  say,  that  the  same  were 
originally  obtained  as  is  hereinafter  stated  ;  but,  in  so  far  as  the  same  were  obtained 
by  voluntary  contributions,  on  the  rebuilding  of  the  Book  Concern  when  damaged 
by  fire,  and  in  respect  of  any  portion  thereof  contributed  from  the  South,  these 
defendants  state,  that  all  such  contributions  were  made,  intended,  and  given  for  the 
very  object  for  which  said  Book  Concern  was  then,  and  always  had  been,  designed ; 
that,  on  occasion  of  the  contributions  referred  to,  many  others  largely  contributed, 
who  have  since  left  the  Church ;  yet  that  any  such  separatists  have  never  had,  nor 
presumed  to  make,  a  claim  for  their  quota  of  such  contributions ;  nor,  on  that 
account,  as  these  defendants  submit,  can  they,  or  the  plaintiffs,  or  those  whom  the 
plaintiffs  represent,  have  or  make  any  claim  to  recall  the  portion  of  donations  they 
have  severally  made  by  such  voluntary  gifts  and  contributions. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  admit,  that  before  and  on  the  8th  day 
of  June,  1844,  with  the  qualification  and  exception  hereinafter  stated,  relative  to  the 
Chartered  Fund  and  the  Book  Concern  in  the  city  of  New- York,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  owned  and  possessed  large  amounts  of  property  in  various  parts 
of  the  United  States  ;  not,  however,  as  the  plaintiffs  say,  in  addition  to,  but  prin- 
cipally consisting  of,  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  and  other  estates  of  that  descrip- 
tion. But  these  defendants  deny,  that,  among  other  or  any  descriptions  or  claims 
of  property,  there  ever  belonged  to  said  Church,  in  the  aggregate,  or  to  its  lay  mem- 
bership, what  was  and  still  is,  denominated  '  the  Book  Concern,'  in  the  city  of  New- 
York  ;  and  these  defendants  say,  that  said  Book  Concern,  with  all  houses,  lots, 
machinery,  printing-presses,  book-bindery,  books,  paper,  debts,  cash,  and  other 
articles  of  property  pertaining  thereto,  is  now,  and  always  has  been,  the  property  of 
the  preachers  belonging  to  the  travelling  connexion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  their  families ;  but  if  any  of  such  preachers  do  not,  during  life,  continue 
in  such  travelling  connexion  and  in  the  communion,  and  subject  to  the  government, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  they  forfeit,  for  themselves  and  their  families, 
all  their  ownership  in,  and  all  claim  upon,  said  Book  Concern,  and  the  produce 
thereof.  And  further,  that  the  property  of  the  said  Book  Concern,  consist  ing  as  afore- 
said, amounts,  in  value,  at  the  present  time,  to  about  the  sum  stated  in  the  schedule 
hereto  annexed,  marked  A,  which  schedule  contains  a  general  statement  of  all  the 
assets  and  property  pertaining  to  said  Book  Concern,  and  of  the  value  thereof,  on  the 
first  day  of  January,  1849,  as  accurately  as  the  same  could  then,  or  can  now  be 
conveniently  ascertained ;  and  which  schedule  is  hereby  referred  to,  and  made  a  part 
of  this  answer.  And  the  defendants  admit,  that  all  said  lands,  property,  and  effects 
pertaining  to  said  Book  Concern,  and  enumerated  in  said  schedule,  are  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  defendants,  Lane  and  Scott,  as  agents  for  said  Book  Concern,  who 
have  been  duly  appointed  as  such  agents  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  ;  and  the  defendants  state,  that  such  agents  are  enabled  to 
hold  said  lands,  and  the  buildings  thereon  and  appurtenances,  for  the  objects  of  said 
Book  Concern  and  the  purposes  of  such  agency,  by  virtue  of  an  act  of  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  State  of  New- York,  entitled,  '  An  Act  relative  to  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern  in  the  city  of  New  York,'  passed  April  21,  1837,  which  has  ever  since 
been,  and  still  is,  a  valid  law  of  the  State  of  New-York,  and  of  which  the  following 
.s  a  copy,  to  wit  : — 


22 

"'An  Act  relative  to  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  in  the  city  of  New- York, 
passed  April  21,  1837. 

"  '  §  1.  It  shall  be  lawful  for  Thomas  Mason  and  George  Lane,  Agents  for  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  their  successors,  as  such  agents,  to  take  and  hold  real  estate. 
in  trust  for  the  purposes  of  such  agency,  and  to  demise  and  convey  the  same  ;  but 
the  value  of  such  real  estate  so  taken  and  held  by  them  shall  not  exceed  two  hun-. 
dred  thousand  dollars. 

"  '  §  2.  The  real  estate  heretofore  conveyed  to  Thomas  Mason  and  George  Lane, 
as  agents  as  aforesaid,  shall  be  considered  as  part  of  the  real  estate  to  be  held  by 
them,  and  their  successors,  as  such  agents,  in  trust  as  aforesaid.' — Session  Lau-s 
of  Neu>-York,  of  1837  ;  ch.  232,  p.  220. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  state,  that  the  said  Book  Concern 
was  originally  commenced  and  instituted  by  travelling  ministers  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  on  their  own  capital,  with  the  great  design,  in  the  first  place,  of 
circulating  religious  knowledge  ;  by  whom  it  was  surrendered  to  the  ownership  of  all 
the  travelling  preachers  in  full  connexion,  and  made  subject  to  the  control  of  all  the 
travelling  preachers  in  their  general  convention,  then  called  the  General  Conference ; 
and  it  was  agreed,  from  time  to  time,  that  the  profits  arising  from  the  sale  of  the 
books  should  be  applied  to  pious  and  charitable  objects,  but  principally  to  the  sup- 
port of  travelling  ministers  and  their  families,  until,  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1796,  it  was  determined  that  the  said  moneys  should,  in  future,  be  applied  wholly 
to  the  relief  of  travelling  preachers,  including  such  of  them  as  were  superannuated, 
and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  such  as  were  deceased  ;  one  of  the  decisions  of  which 
General  Conference  in  that  year  was,  '  the  produce  of  the  sale  of  our  books,  after 
the  book  debts  are  paid,  and  a  sufficient  capital  is  provided  for  carrying  on  the  busi- 
ness, shall  be  regularly  paid  into  the  Chartered  Fund  ;'  and  the  object  of  said  fund 
was  for  '  the  relief  of  distressed  travelling  preachers,  for  the  families  of  travelling 
preachers,  and  for  the  superannuated  and  worn-out  preachers,  and  the  widows  and 
orphans  of  preachers.'  That,  from  that  time  to  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  no 
other  appropriation  whatever  was  made  of  the  proceeds  of  said  Book  Concern,  but  for 
the  benefit  of  travelling  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  their  fami- 
lies ;  and  that  until,  and  in,  the  General  Conference  of  that  year,  as  is  hereinbefore 
stated,  all  the  travelling  preachers  in  full  connexion,  who  had  travelled  four  years,  be- 
longing to  the  Church,  had  a  seat  in,  and  were  members  of,  the  General  Conference  ; 
at  which  time,  on  the  occasion  of  adopting  the  plan  for  a  delegated  General  Confer- 
ence, with  constitutional  powers  limited  by  certain  restrictions,  as  above  detailed, 
the  said  General  Conference  of  travelling  preachers  established  a  Constitution,  as 
already  stated,  specifying  who  should  compose,  and  defining  the  regulations  and 
powers  belonging  to,  such  delegated  General  Conference,  and  therein  and  thereby 
providing  that  the  General  Conference  should  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and 
regulations  for  the  Church,  under  six  specified  limitations  and  restrictions,  com- 
monly called  the  Restrictive  Articles,  which  are  fully  set  out  in  the  Book  of  Discip- 
line—-by  means  whereof,  the  said  general  convention  of  travelling  preachers,  as 
defendants  submit  they  lawfully  might  do,  committed  the  management  of  the  said 
Book  Concern  to  such  delegated  General  Conference,  as  to  agents,  or  trustees, 
under  and  subject  to  the  limitation  and  restriction  contained  in  the  sixth  of  said 
restrictive  articles,  which  the  defendants  crave  leave  to  read  and  refer  to  as  a  part 
of  this  answer. 

"  And  the  defendants  pray  that  said  constitution  and  restrictive  articles,  es- 
pecially the  above-recited  sixth  restrictive  article,  may  be  taken  as  a  part  of  this 
answer  ;  and  that  they  may  have  leave  to  read  and  refer  to  said  constitution  and 
restrictive  articles,  and  to  the  proceedings  of  said  general  convention  of  travelling 
preachers,  as  a  part  also  of  this  answer. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  say,  that  the  recommendation  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  contained  in  the  aforesaid  resolution  embodied  in  the 
so-called  'Plan  of  Separation,'  to  all  the  annual  conferences,  to  authorize  a  change  of 
the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that  the  first  clause  should  read  as  in  said  resolution 
specified,  has  not  been  concurred  in  by  the  constitutional  majority  of  the  members 
of  such  annual  conferences  ;  and  that  such  recommendation  has  entirely  failed  : 
that  such  recommendation  was  duly  laid  before  all  the  annual  conferences  ;  and  that 
they  all  voted  thereon  ;  but,  on  canvassing  the  votes  at  the  General  Conference  in 


23 

1848, — which  body  had  full  power  to  determine  the  number  of  votes  by  the  annual 
conferences  for  altering  such  restrictive  rule, — it  was  ascertained  and  declared,  that 
the  number  of  votes  necessary  to  authorize  such  alteration  had  not  been  obtained  ; 
nor  have  the  annual  conferences  at  any  time  since  authorized  such  change  of  said 
article. 

"  And  these  defendants,  for  the  proceedings  of  said  General  Conference,  and  the 
particulars,  in  respect  of  such  votes,  crave  leave  to  refer  to  the  journal  of  that  con- 
ference, page  56,  and  to  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church, 
being  document  L,  recorded  in  the  Journal  of  Reports  of  said  General  Conference. 

"Wherefore,  these  defendants,  as  touching  the  allegations  and  claims  in  the  plain- 
tiffs' bill,  with  regard  to  the  property  denominated  the  '  Book-Concern,'  and  ;  Char- 
tered Fund,'  and  the  moneys,  effects,  and  credits  pertaining  thereto,  insist  and  sub- 
mit, that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  is  not  entitled,  at  law  or  in  equity, 
to  have  a  division  of  such  property  made,  as  claimed  by  said  bill ;  nor  is  such  Church, 
South,  thus  entitled  to  any  share  or  portion  thereof;  nor  are  any  of  the  ministers, 
preachers,  or  members,  attached  to  such  Church,  South,  thus  entitled  to  any  portion 
of  the  same  ;  and  that  they — being  no  longer  travelling  preachers  belonging  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church — could  not  be  so  entitled,  without  a  constitutional 
change  in  the  said  sixth  restrictive  article,  which  would  authorize  such  division. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  deny,  that  at  the  time  alleged  by  the 
plaintiffs,  or  at  any  other  time,  the  agents  of  the  Book  Concern  at  New- York,  in 
pursuance  of  the  provisions  or  terms  of  said  resolutions,  called  by  the  plaintiffs  the 
'  Plan  of  Separation,'  paid  to  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  South,  their  proportion  of  the  profits  and  income  of  the  Book  Concern, 
as  fixed  and  set  apart  by  the  said  agents  for  the  year  1845;  and,  in  respect  of  such 
allegation,  these  defendants  say,  that  the  portion  of  profits  and  income,  alluded  to  by 
the  plaintiffs,  which  said  book-agents  paid  to  such  annual  conferences,  had  accrued 
and  been  apportioned  to  such  Southern  conferences  previous  to  the  organization  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  whilst  such  conferences  were  connected 
with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  that  such  payment  was  made  without 
any  reference  whatever  to  the  said  so-called  '  Plan  of  Separation.'  And  the  defend- 
ants admit,  that,  since  the  year  1845,  the  said  agents  have  refused  to  pay  to  the 
annual  conferences,  South,  who  have  separated  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
as  aforesaid,  anything  further  from  the  profits  or  income  of  said  Book  Concern — as, 
these  defendants  submit,  in  justice  and  right,  and  according  to  their  duty,  said  agents 
ought  to  have  done.  And  these  defendants  deny,  that  such  annual  conferences. 
South,  are  legally  entitled  to  any  portion  or  share  of  such  profits  or  income ;  or  that 
the  withholding  thereof  from  them,  by  said  agents,  is  in  violation  of  their  rights. 

"And  these  defendants,  further -answering,  admit,  that  the  body  assuming  to  act 
as  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  holden  at, 
Petersburg,  Va.,  in  May,  1846,  proceeded  to  appoint  the  commissioners  as  stated  in 
said  bill,  and  for  the  purposes  therein  stated ;  and  the  defendants  also  admit,  that 
the  body  aforesaid  adopted  the  resolutions  commencing  at  folio  34  of  the  plaintiffs' 
bill ;  but  these  defendants  submit  and  insist,  that  such  resolutions  are  entirely  nuga- 
tory in  their  effect  upon  the  property  and  funds  therein  referred  to,  and  the  matters 
pertaining  to  the  same. 

"  And  the  defendants  admit  that  said  commissioners  have  made  the  applications 
to  these  defendants  and  James  B.  Finley,  and  the  requests  of  them,  in  the  said  bill 
stated ;  and  that  these  defendants  have  refused  to  act  in  the  premises ;  and  they  say, 
they  have  thus  refused  for  the  reasons  and  on  the  grounds  herein  set  forth. 

"  The  defendants  also  admit,  that  the  plaintiffs  have  not  been  enabled  to  induce 
the  said  book-agents — nor  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — nor  the  commissioners 
named  by  the  plaintiffs — to  pay  to  the  Church,  South,  any  portion  or  share  of  said 
property  and  funds,  except  as  aforesaid  ;  but  the  defendants  deny,  that  said  Church, 
South,  is  lawfully  entitled  to  any  proportionate  or  other  share  of  said  property  or 
funds,  as  provided  by  said  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  so-called,  or  otherwise. 

"  And  the  defendants  admit,  that  the  plaintiffs  are  members  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  and  that  they  are  preachers  belonging  to  the  travelling  con- 
nexion of  said  Church,  South ;  but  these  defendants  deny,  that,  as  such,  they,  or 
any  or  either  of  them,  have  any  personal  interest  in  the  real  estate,  personal  pro- 
perty, debts  or  funds  above-mentioned ;  or  in  any  property,  debts  or  funds,  if  any, 
now  holden  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  through  these  defendants,  or  any 


24 

of  them,  as  agents  or  trustees,  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  or  otherwise. 

••  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  say,  that  they  have  not  sufficient 
knowledge  or  information,  either  to  admit  or  deny,  whether  the  allegations  in  the 
plaintiffs'  bill  respecting  the  number  of  preachers  belonging  to  the  travelling  con- 
nexion of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  number  in  the  member- 
ship of  that  Church, — are  true  or  not ;  and  the  plaintiffs  are,  therefore,  left  to  make 
such  proof  thereof  as  they  may  be  able  and  advised  to  do ;  these  defendants,  how- 
rver,  according  to  their  belief,  say,  that  such  numbers  have  been  over-stated  by  the 
plaintiffs. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  deny,  that  the  preachers  belonging  to 
the  travelling  connexion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  or  any  or  either 
of  them,  have  a  direct  and  personal,  or  other  legal  or  equitable  interest,  in  the  same 
right  with  the  plaintiffs,  or  otherwise,  in  said  property,  situated  and  held  as  herein- 
before stated,  or  in  any  part  or  portion  thereof,  to  any  amount  whatever.  And  the 
defendants  utterly  deny  that  the  lay  membership  of  the  Church,  South,  whether  in 
number  as  stated  by  the  plaintiffs,  or  otherwise,  are  parties  in  interest  in  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  plaintiffs'  bill,  or  have,  or  ever  had,  any  pecuniary  interest  in  the  said 
funds  or  property. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  admit,  that  these  defendants  are  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  are  preachers  belonging  to  the  travel- 
ling connexion  of  that  Church,  and  that  each  of  them  has  a  personal  interest  in  the 
said  property  and  funds ;  but  these  defendants  state,  that  such  interest  is  the  same 
only  as  is  held  in  common  by  all  the  preachers  in  the  travelling  connexion  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  depends  upon  the  contingency  of  their  remaining 
in  that  connexion.  And  these  defendants  admit  that  the  defendants,  Lane  and  Scott, 
have  the  custody  and  control  by  law,  and  by  virtue  of  their  appointment  as  agents 
of  the  Book  Concern  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
of  all  the  said  property  and  effects  of  the  said  Book  Concern. 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  say,  that  they  have  no  certain  know- 
ledge thereof,  but,  according  to  their  information  and  belief,  they  deny,  that  the 
plaintiffs  have  brought  their  said  bill  by  the  authority,  and  under  the  direction,  of  all 
the  annual  conferences  and  travelling  preachers,  or  members,  in  said  Church,  South. 
And  these  defendants  claim  and  insist  upon  the  same  benefit  and  advantage  of  this 
objection  to  the  right  of  said  plaintiffs  to  bring  said  bill,  as  if  the  same  were  inter- 
posed by  plea,  or  demurrer,  or  m  other  proper  manner. 

"  And  these  defendants,  George  Lane  and  Levi  Scott,  further  answering,  say,  that 
the  schedule  hereto  annexed,  marked  A,  contains  a  full,  particular  and  just  account 
of  all  the  real  estate,  personal  estate,  goods,  debte,  money  and  effects  of  every  sort 
or  kind,  held  by  them,  or  either  of  them,  as  agent  or  agents,  trustees,  or  members, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  such  account  can,  at  the  present  time, 
be  conveniently  made  up  ;  and  the  same  comprises  all  the  assets  and  property  per- 
taining to  said  Book  Concern. 

"  And  these  defendants,  Nathan  Bangs  and  George  Peck,  admit,  that,  by  the 
terms  of  the  resolutions  already  referred  to,  they,  together  with  James  B.  Finley, 
were  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of 
1844,  held  at  New- York,  commissioners,  for  the  purposes  stated  in  such  resolutions, 
in  the  event  aforesaid  of  their  becoming  operative  ;  but  say,  that  they  have  not  re- 
ceived any  other  appointment  or  authority  as  commissioners,  or  otherwise,  to  act 
upon  the  part  of  said  General  Conference,  or  said  Church,  with  any  commissioners 
on  the  part  of  the  South,  in  relation  to  any  division,  distribution,  or  settlement  of  the 
property  herein  referred  to,  or  of  any  so-called  '  Church  property.'  And  these 
defendants,  Bangs  and  Peck,  further  say,  that  inasmuch  as  the  said  resolutions,  de- 
nominated the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  have  never  had  any  validity,  and  have  been 
declared  null  and  void,  in  the  manner  hereinbefore  stated — they  admit  they  have  re- 
fused to  act,  as  such  commissioners  under  those  resolutions,  in  any  settlement  or 
division  of  any  property. 

"  And  the  defendants  submit  that  the  plaintiffs  are  not  entitled  to  the  relief  or  de- 
cree prayed  for  in  said  Bill  of  Complaint,  or  to  any  other  relief  or  decree  against 
these  defendants,  touching  the  matters  in  said  bill  set  forth. 

"  And  these  defendants,  in  answering,  further  say,  that  as  they  are  advised  by 
counsel  and  believe,  and  therefore  submit,  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


25 

Church,  South,  to  a  pro  rata  portion  of  the  funds  and  property  in  question  in  this 
suit,  is  not  clear,  but  on  the  contrary  must  be  conceeded  to  be  at  least  doubtful  in 
law,  and  that  these  defendants  cannot  safely  pay  or  deliver  over  the  same  to  them, 
or  their  agents  lawfully  constituted,  without  their  first  having  their  rights  therein  and 
thereto  established,  and  without  the  sanction  and  authority  of  a  court  of  law  ;  and 
they  therefore  pray,  that,  in  any  event,  they  may  be  protected  from  all  injury  in  the 
premises  ;  that  their  rights  and  duties  therein  may  be  established,  and  all  proper 
costs,  counsel  fees,  commissions,  and  expenses  of  every  kind,  may  be  allowed  to 
them  under  the  decree  of  this  Honourable  Court. 

MR.  LORD, — A  replication  has  been  filed  to  this  answer  which  it  is  not  necessary 
to  read. 

Since  these  proceedings  began,  we  have  had  to  lament  the  death  of  Dr.  Bascom, 
one  of  the  parties  to  this  suit.  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  has  been  substituted  in  the 
place  of  Bishop  Bascom.  I  have  the  consent  of  my  friends  on  the  other  side,  dated 
the  14th  of  May,  and  if  your  Honours  please  I  move  that  an  order  be  made,  making 
this  substitution  as  of  to-day. 

THE  COURT, — Take  your  order. 

MR.  LORD, — If  your  Honours  please,  in  introducing  these  proofs  I  may  say  that 
they  are  mostly,  if  not  altogether,  documents  to  be  introduced  by  consent.  We 
have  on  each  side  consented  that  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  printed  in  1840,  which  was  the  book  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  Conference 
of  1844,  shall  be  considered  in  evidence.  And  we  have  printed  those  extracts  which, 
on  leading  the  book,  we  considered  to  bear  upon  the  case,  and  which  your  Honours 
will  find  in  the  Book  of  Proofs,  No.  1 .  If  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  think 
theie  is  any  other  part  that  is  material  to  the  case,  they  can  read  it  to  the  Court.  We 
also,  in  regard  to  such  historical  facts  as  may  bear  on  this  controversy,  have  on  each 
side  agreed  to  refer  to  Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Church ;  and  further, 
we  have  marked  our  extracts  and  printed  them. 

MR.  CHOATE, — With  the  right  reserved  to  both  parties  of  looking  beyond  them,  I 
suppose  1 

MR.  LORD, — Yes,  sir,  with  the  same  right  reserved  to  both  parties  of  looking 
beyond  them.  We  also  refer  to  the  printed  journals  of  the  several  General  Confer- 
ences of  the  Church,  for  the  years  1840  and  1844,  which  were  Conferences  common 
to  the  two  Churches,  and  to  the  journals  of  the  Conference  of  1848  ;  all  of  which  we 
have  agreed  to  admit  in  evidence.  The  Conference  of  1848  of  course  bore  a  differ- 
ent relation,  a  very  different  relation,  to  the  subject,  we  suppose,  than  those  of  1840 
and  1844.  We  also  refer  to  the  manuscript  journals  of  the  several  General  Confer- 
ences of  the  same  Church,  prior  to  1840,  which  are  accessible  to  both  solicitors  at  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  which  shall  be  held  and  consi- 
dered to  be  duly  authenticated  and  verified  by  proof ;  and  extracts  from  any  part  of 
them  shall  be  admitted  as  evidence,  and  either  party  shall  be  at  liberty  to  refer  to 
and  read  them  with  the  same  effect  as  if  the  original  had  actually  been  produced  in 
proof.  In  introducing  this  evidence  to  the  Court,  I  shall  not  take  the  course  of  read- 
ing the  book  through,  but  I  shall  introduce  each  distinct  portion  as  it  bears  upon  the 
points  of  the  case,  as  they  are  presented  in  our  brief  of  the  points  of  the  argument. 
The  first  to  which  I  shall  refer  are  those  in  relation  to  the  Book  Concern.  I  shall 
refer  your  Honours  to  the  pages,  so  that  they  may  be  marked  as  I  proceed.  I  refer 
to  page  30  of  the  Book  of  Proofs,  No.  1,  which  are  proofs  common  to  both  parties. 


26 

The  Book  of  Proofs,  No.  2,  contains  proceedings  which  we  introduce  in  evidence  t'~> 
show  the  acts  of  the  portion  of  the  Church  with  which  we  are  more  especially 
connected.  The  stipulation  in  regard  to  the  admission  of  that  is  in  the  preface  to 
the  book  in  these  words  : — 

"  The  plaintiffs  in  this  cause,  by  their  solicitor,  propose  and  consent  to  the  follow- 
ing documents  and  papers,  and  the  matters  therein  stated,  as  further  evidence  in  this 
action. 

"  And  the  defendants,  by  their  solicitor,  consent  that  said  documents  and  papers 
be  read  in  evidence,  to  show  the  proceedings  therein  detailed  of  the  various  bodies 
and  members  thereof,  and  persons,  as  such  proceedings  are  by  those  bodies,  members, 
and  persons,  respectively  for  themselves  reported. 

"  But  the  defendants,  except  as  above,  do  not  admit  any  statements  of  alleged 
matters  of  fact  or  of  opinion,  or  any  of  the  arguments  in  said  documents  or  papers 
contained. 

"  The  Discipline  of  the  '  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  may  be  referred  to 
as  containing  the  doctrines,  and  rules  of  government  and  discipline  of  said  organiza- 
tion." 

Turning  to  page  30  of  Book  of  Proofs,  No.  1,  I  read  as  follows.  It  is  an  extract 
from  the  Book  of  Discipline  of  1840  : — 

"  Of  the  Printing  and  Circulating  of  Books,  and  of  the  profits  arising  therefrom. 

"  1.  The  principal  establishment  of  the  Book  Concern  shall  be  in  the  city  of  New- 
York  ;  and  there  shall  be  such  other  establishments  as  the  General  Conference  may 
deem  expedient." — P.  198. 

"  28.  The  profits  arising  from  the  Book-Concern,  after  a  sufficient  capital  to 
carry  on  the  business  is  retained,  shall  be  regularly  applied  to  the  support  of  the  de- 
ficient travelling  preachers  and  their  families,  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preachers, 
&c.  The  general  book-steward  shall  every  year  send  forward  to  each  annual  con- 
ference an  account  of  the  dividend  which  the  several  annual  conferences  may  draw 
that  year ;  and  each  conference  may  draw  for  its  proportionate  part  on  any  person 
who  has  book-money  in  hands,  and  the  drafts,  with  the  receipt  of  the  conference 
thereon,  shall  be  sent  to  the  general  book-steward,  and  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the 
person  who  paid  the  same."  Pp.  207,  208. 

Now,  if  your  Honours  please,  I  turn  to  the  history  and  origin  of  this  Book  Con- 
cern, as  given  in  Dr.  Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline.  His  History  I  would  ex- 
plain is  in  the  form  of  annals.  He  gives  the  history  of  the  alterations  in  the  Disci- 
pline at  each  successive  General  Conference,  or  other  authorized  act  of  the  Church. 
I  quote  from  page  17  of  the  Book  of  Proofs,  No.  1. 

"  Of  the  printing  and  circulating  of  Books,  and  of  the  Profits  arising  therefrom. 

"  1800.  The  form  of  questions  and  answers  laid  aside,  and  the  whole  section 
remodelled  as  follows : — 

"  1.  Ezekiel  Cooper  is  appointed  the  superintendent  of  the  Book  Concern,  who 
shall  have  authority  to  regulate  the  publications,  and  all  other  parts  of  the  business, 
according  to  the  state  of  the  finances  from  time  to  time.  It  shall  be  his  duty  to 
inform  the  annual  conferences  if  any  of  the  preachers  or  private  members  of  the  so- 
ciety neglect  to  make  due  payment.  He  may  publish  any  books  or  tracts  which,  at 
any  time,  may  be  approved  of  or  recommended  by  the  majority  of  an  annual  con- 
ference, provided  such  books  or  tracts  be  also  approved  of  by  the  book  committee, 
which  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Philadelphia  Annual  Conference.  He  may  reprint 
any  book  or  tract  which  has  once  been  approved  and  published  by  us,  when,  in  hi? 
judgment,  the  same  ought  to  be  reprinted.  Let  his  accounts  and  books  be  examined 
by  the  Philadelphia  Conference  at  the  time  of  the  sitting  of  the  said  conference. 

'•  2.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  presiding  elder,  where  no  book-steward  is  ap- 


27 

pointed,  to  see  that  his  district  be  fully  supplied  with  books.  He  is  to  order  such 
books  as  are  wanted,  and  to  give  direction  to  whose  care  the  same  are  to  be  sent ; 
and  he  is  to  take  the  oversight  of  all  our  books  sent  into  his  district,  and  to  account 
with  the  superintendent  for  the  same.  He  is  to  have  the  books  distributed  among 
the  several  circuits  in  his  district,  and  is  to  keep  an  account  with  each  preacher  who 
receives  or  sells  the  books ;  and  is  to  receive  the  money,  and  to  forward  it  to  the 
superintendent.  When  a  presiding  elder  is  removed,  he  is  to  make  a  full  settlement 
for  all  the  books  sold  or  remaining  in  his  district ;  and  is  also  to  make  a  transfer  to 
his  successor  of  all  the  books  and  accounts  left  with  the  preachers  in  the  district,  the 
amount  of  which  shall  go  to  his  credit,  and  pass  to  the  debit  of  his  successor. 

"  3.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  preacher,  who  has  the  charge  of  a  circuit,  to  see 
that  his  circuit  be  duly  supplied  with  books,  and  to  take  charge  of  all  the  books  which 
are  sent  to  him,  from  time  to  time,  or  which  may  be  in  his  circuit ;  and  he  is  to  ac- 
count with  the  presiding  elder  for  the  same.  When  a  preacher  leaves  his  circuit,  he 
must  settle  with  the  presiding  elder  for  all  the  books  he  has  disposed  of;  he  is  also 
to  make  out  an  inventory  of  all  that  are  remaining  unsold,  which  shall  be  collected 
at  one  place ;  the  amount  of  which  shall  go  to  his  credit,  and  be  transferred  to  his 
successor,  who  is  to  take  charge  of  the  same.  If  the  preacher  who  has  the  charge 
of  the  circuit  be  negligent  in  dispersing  the  books,  the  presiding  eWer  shall  commit 
the  charge  of  the  books  to  another. 

"  4.  The  superintendent  of  the  book  business  may,  from  time  to  time,  supply  the 
preachers  with  books  in  those  circuits  which  are  adjacent  or  convenient  to  Philadel- 
phia, and  settle  with  them  for  the  same :  in  such  cases  the  regulations  respecting  the 
presiding  elders  are  not  to  apply. 

"  5.  In  all  cases  where  books  are  sent  to  distant  places,  the  presiding  elders  or 
preachers  shall  be  allowed  to  put  a  small  additional  price  on  such  books  as  will  best 
bear  it,  in  order  to  pay  the  expense  of  freight  or  carriage ;  but  the  addition  must  not 
be  more  than  what  is  necessary  to  defray  such  expenses. 

"  6.  Every  annual  conference  shall  appoint  a  committee  or  committees  to  examine 
the  accounts  of  the  presiding  elders,  preachers,  and  book-stewards,  in  their  respec- 
tive districts  or  circuits.  Every  presiding  elder,  minister,  and  preacher,  shall  do 
everything  in  their  power  to  recover  all  debts  due  to  the  Concern,  and  also  all  the 
books  belonging  to  the  Concern,  which  may  remain  in  the  hands  of  any  person  with- 
in their  districts  or  circuits.  If  any  preacher  or  member  be  indebted  to  the  Book 
Concern,  and  refuse  to  make  payment,  or  to  come  to  a  just  settlement,  let  him  be 
dealt  with  for  a  breach  of  trust,  and  such  effectual  measures  be  adopted  for  the 
recovery  of  such  debts  as  shall  be  agreeable  to  the  direction  of  the  annual  confer- 
ences respectively. 

"  7.  There  shall  be  no  drafts  made  upon  the  Book  Concern  till  its  debts  are  dis- 
charged, and  a  sufficient  capital  provided  fox  carrying  on  the  business ;  after  which, 
the  profits  arising  from  the  books  shall  be  regularly  paid  to  the  chartered  fund,  and 
be  applied,  with  the  annual  income  of  the  funded  stock,  to  the  support  of  the  dis- 
tressed travelling  preachers  and  their  families,  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preach- 
ers, &c. 

"  8.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  preacher  or  preachers  who  travel  with  any  of  the 
bishops,  if  he  or  they  be  authorized  by  the  superintendent  of  the  Book  Concern,  to 
act  as  an  agent  in  the  settlement  of  accounts,  collecting  money,  or  in  transacting  any 
business  belonging  to  the  Book  Concern." — Pp.  258-260. 

In  1804,  while  the  conference  consisted  of  all  the  preachers,  it  was  altered  to 
read  in  this  way, — pp.  19,  20,  Book  of  proofs,  No.  1. 

"  1804. — 7.  The  profits  arising  from  the  Book  Concern,  after  a  sufficient  capital  to 
carry  on  the  business  is  retained,  shall  be  regularly  applied  to  the  support  of  the 
distressed  travelling  preachers  and  their  families,  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preach- 
ers, &c.  The  general  book-steward,  shall  every  year  send  forward  to  each  annual 
conference  an  account  of  the  dividend  which  the  several  annual  conferences  may 
draw  that  year  ;  and  each  conference  may  draw  for  their  proportionate  part,  on  any 
person  who  has  book  money  in  hand,  and  the  drafts,  with  the  receipt  of  the  confer- 
ence thereon,  shall  be  sent  to  the  general  book-steward,  and  be  placed  to  the  credit 
of  the  person  who  paid  the  same.  But  each  annual  conference  is  authorized, 
at  all  events,  to  draw  on  the  general  book-steward  for  one  hundred  dollars." — Pp. 
261,  262. 


28 

Your  Honours  will  observe  the  change  to  be,  that  the  profits  were  not  to  be  paid 
into  the  Chartered  Fund,  but  to  be  distributed  by  the  agencies  of  the  annual  confer- 
ences ;  and  it  thus  remained,  in  substance,  until  the  rule  was  adopted  as  it  now  stands 
in  the  Discipline  of  1840. 

The  nest  subject,  extracts  in  relation  to  which  I  will  read,  is  the  Conferences,  An- 
nual and  General ;  but  in  that  connexion  I  will  read  extracts  from  the  Book  of 
Discipline  of  1840,  beginning  on  page  25  of  the  first  of  the  proofs,  on  the  subject 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  Church,  and  its  rites  and  ceremonies  ;  for  they  bear  upon 
this  part  of  the  case.  The  articles  of  religion  are  printed  at  large,  and  what  I  shall 
read  are  but  extracts, 

"ARTICLES  OF  RELIGION. 

"  V.   The  Sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  Salvation. 

"  The  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  :  so  that  whatso- 
ever is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any 
man,  that  it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  ne- 
cessary to  salvation." — P.  10. 

"  XIII.    Of  the  Church. 

<(  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure 
word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  administered  according  to  Christ's 
ordinance  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same." — P.  14. 

"  XXII.    Of  the  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  Churches. 

"  It  is  not  necessary  that  rites  and  ceremonies  should  in  all  places  be  the  same,  or 
exactly  alike  :  for  they  have  been  always  different,  and  may  be  changed  according 
to  the  diversity  of  countries,  times,  and  men's  manners,  so  that  nothing  be  ordained 
against  God's  word.  Whosoever,  through  his  private  judgment,  willingly  and  pur- 
posely doth  openly  break  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  to  which  he  belongs, 
which  are  not  repugnant  to  the  word  of  God,  and  are  ordained  and  approved  by  com- 
mon authority,  ought  to  be  rebuked  openly,  that  others  may  fear  to  do  the  like,  as 
one  that  offendcth  against  the  common  order  of  the  Church,  and  woundeth  the  con- 
sciences of  weak  brethren. 

"  Every  particular  Church  may  ordain,  change,  or  abolish  rites  and  ceremonies,  so 
that  all  things  may  be  done  to  edification." — Pp.  18,  19. 

' '  XXIII.   Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

"  The  president,  the  congress,  the  general  assemblies,  the  governors,  and  the 
councils  of  state,  as  the  delegates  of  the  people,  arc  the  rulers  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  according  to  the  division  of  power  made  to  them  by  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  and  by  the  Constitutions  of  their  respective  States.  And  the  said 
States  are  a  sovereign  and  independent  nation,  and  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  any 
foreign  jurisdiction."* 

"  Of  the  General  Conference. 

"  Quest.  2.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regu- 
lations and  powers  belonging  to  it  1 

"  Ang.  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every 
twenty-one  members  of  each  annual  conference,  to  be  appointed  cither  by  seniority 
or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  annual  conference  :  yet  so  that  such  representa- 
tives shall  have  travelled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  they 
were  received  on  trial  by  an  annual  conference,  and  are  in  full  connexion  at  the 
time  of  holding  the  conference. 

"  2.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1812,  in  the  city  of  New-York,  and  thenceforward  on  the  first  day  of  May 

•'  *  As  far  as  it  respects  civil  affairs,  we  believe  it  the  duty  of  Christians,  and  especially  all 
Christian  ministers,  to  be  subject  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  country  where  they  may  re- 
side, and  to  use  all  laudable  means  to  enjoin  obedience  to  the  powers  that  be  ;  and  therefore  it 
is  expected  that  all  our  preachers  and  people,  who  may  be  under  the  British,  or  any  other 
government,  will  behave  themselves  as  peaceable  and  orderly  subjects."— P.  19. 


29 

once  in  four  years  perpetually,  in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the 
General  Conference  from  time  to  time  :  but  the  general  superintendents,  with  or  by 
the  advice  of  all  the  annual  conferences,  or  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  all 
the  annual  conferences  respectively,  shall  have  power  to  call  a  General  Conference, 
if  they  judge  it  necessary  at  any  time. 

"  3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall  take  two-thirds  of  the 
representatives  of  all  the  annual  conferences  to  make  a  quorum  for  transacting 
business. 

"  4.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  General  Conference  ; 
but  in  case  no  general  superintendent  be  present,  the  General  Conference  shall 
choose  a  president  pro  tern. 

"  5.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regula- 
tions for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions,  viz  : — " 

The  six  articles  that  I  am  going  to  read  are  known  under  the  technical  name  of 
"  Restrictive  Articles."  I  may  here  also  observe,  that  the  designation  "  General 
Superintendents,"  in  what  I  have  read,  is  the  name  given  to  their  bishops. 

"  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  articles  of  reli- 
gion, nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine. 

"  2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen 
members  of  the  annual  conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every 
thirty  :  provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be  in  any  annual  conference  a 
fraction  of  two-thirds  the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation, 
such  annual  conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  frac- 
tion ;  and  provided,  also,  that  no  conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  two  de- 
legates. 

"  3.  They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to 
do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency. 

"  4.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  general  rules  of  the  United  Societies. 

"  5.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by 
a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our 
members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal. 

"  6.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book-Concern,  nor  of  the  Char- 
ter Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernumerary, 
superannuated  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children.  Provided, 
nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent  recommendation  of  three-fourths  of  all  the 
members  of  the  several  annual  conferences,  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such 
recommendation,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding 
shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions,  excepting  the  first  article  :  and 
also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have  been  first  recommended 
by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  so  soon  as  three-fourths  of  the  members  of 
all  the  annual  conferences  shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid,  such  alteration  or  alte- 
rations shall  take  effect."— Pp.  21-24. 

"  Of  the  Annual  Conferences. 

"  Quest.  3.  Who  shall  attend  the  yearly  conferences  1 

"  Ans.  All  the  travelling  preachers  who  are  in  full  connexion,  and  those  who  are 
to  be  received  into  full  connexion." — P.  24. 

"  Of  the  Allowance  to  the  Ministers  and  Preachers,  and  to  their  Wives,  Widows,  and 

Children. 

"  1.  The  annual  allowance  of  the  married  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  super- 
annuated preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  two  hundred  dollars,  and  their  travel- 
ling expenses. 

"  2.  The  annual  allowance  of  the  unmarried  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  super- 
annuated preachers,  and  bishops,  shall  be  one  hundred  dollars,  and  their  travelling 
expenses. 

"  3.  Each  child  of  a  travelling  preacher  or  bishop  shall  be  allowed  sixteen  dollars 


30 

annually,  to  the  age  of  seven  years,  and  twenty-four  dollars  annually  from  the  age 

i  to  fourteen  years  ;  and  those  preachers  whose  wives  are  dead  shall  be 

for  each  child  annually  a  sum  sufficient  to  pay  the  board  of  such  child  or 

children  during  the  above  term  of  years  :     Nevertheless,  this  rule  shall  not  apply  to 

•he  children  of  preachers  whose  families  are  provided  for  by  other  means  in  their 

circuits  respectively. 

"4.  The  annual  allowance  of  the  widows  of  travelling,  superannuated,  worn-out,  and 
supernumerary  preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  one  hundred  dollars. 

['he  orphans  of  travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out 
preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  allowed  by  the  annual  conferences  the  same 
sums  respectively  which  are  allowed  to  the  children  of  living  preachers.  And  on  the 
death  of  a  preacher  leaving  a  child  or  children  without  so  much  of  worldly  goods  as 
should  be  necessary  to  his,  her,  or  their  support,  the  annual  conference  of  which  he 
was  a  member  shall  raise,  in  such  a  manner  as  may  be  deemed  best,  a  yearly  sum 
for  the  subsistence  and  education  of  such  orphan  child  or  children,  until  he,  she,  or 
they,  shall  have  arrived-  at  fourteen  years  of  age.  The  amount  of  which  yearly 
sum  shall  be  fixed  by  a  committee  of  the  conference  at  each  session  in  advance." — 
Pp.  181,  182. 

Now,  if  your  Honours  please,  I  propose  to  read  historical  documents,  to  show 
how  this  power  of  the  General  Conferences  has  taken  its  shape  from  time  to  time  ; 
so  that  it  may  be  seen  what  has  been  done,  how  it  has  arisen,  and  how  it  has  grown 
up.  I  am  about  to  read  an  extract  from  Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline.  By 
"  Discipline  "  is  meant  the  book  of  that  designation  containing  the  articles  of  religion 
and  everything  relating  to  this  Church. 

"  In  our  civil  governments  the  statutes  are  scattered  through  the  several  volumes 
<>f  laws,  which  have  been  published  from  time  to  time,  and  therefore  these  are  all 
preserved.  But,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  Discipline,  as  revised  at  each 
General  Conference,  being  in  itself  complete,  supplants  all  that  had  gone  before  it, 
and  the  previous  editions  are  cast  aside,  as  of  no  further  use.  Thus  it  has  con- 
tinued, until  now  nearly  sixty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  organization  of  the  Church, 
and  the  Discipline  has  undergone  about  twenty  distinct  revisions  " — P.  3. 

For  the  present  I  pass  over  the  questions  which  relate  to  slavery,  as  I  propose  to 
read  all  those  parts  which  relate  to  that  subject  together,  and  distinct  from  other 
questions.  I  proceed,  therefore,  to  page  3  of  the  first  of  the  proofs : — 

"  The  close  of  the  year  1784  constituted  a  new  and  most  important  epoch  in  Ame- 
rican Methodism.  The  independence  of  the  United  States  having  been  confirmed 
by  the  peace  of  1783,  the  authority  of  England  over  them,  both  civil  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal, came  to  an  end.  The  connexion  with  the  Church  of  England  being  thus  provi- 
dentially dissolved,  Mr.  Wesley,  who  had  always  resisted  a  separation  from  it,  took 
measures,  on  the  application  of  the  American  societies,  to  organize  them  into  a 
Church.  In  explanation  of  his  views  and  wishes,  he  addressed  to  the  brethren-  in 
America  the  following  letter : — 

"'BRISTOL,  SEPTEMBER  10,  1784. 
"  '  To  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  our  Brethren  in  North  America : — 

"  '  1.  By  a  very  uncommon  train  of  providences,  many  of  the  provinces  of  North 
America  are  totally  disjoined  from  the  British  empire,  and  erected  into  independent 
States.  The  English  government  has  no  authority  over  them,  either  civil  or  eccle- 
siastical, any  more  than  over  the  States  of  Holland.  A  civil  authority  is  exercised 
over  them,  partly  by  the  congress,  partly  by  the  state  assemblies.  But  no  one  either 
exercises  or  claims  any  ecclesiastical  authority  at  all.  In  this  peculiar  situation 
some  thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  States  desire  my  advice ;  and  in  compli- 
ance with  their  desire  I  have  drawn  up  a  little  sketch. 

.  Lord  King's  account  of  the  primitive  Church  convinced  me,  many  years  ago, 

mhops  and  presbyters  are  the  same  order,  and,  consequently,  have  the  same 

nght  to  ordain.     For  many  years  I  have  been  importuned,  from  time  to  time,  to  ex- 


31 

ercise  this  right,  by  ordaining  part  of  our  travelling  preachers ;  but  I  have  still  re- 
fused, not  only  for  peace'  sake,  but  because  I  was  determined  as  little  as  possible  to 
violate  the  established  order  of  the  national  Church  to  which  I  belonged. 

" '  3.  But  the  case  is  widely  different  between  England  and  North  America. 
Here  there  are  bishops  who  have  a  legal  jurisdiction.  In  America  there  are  none, 
and  but  few  parish  ministers ;  so  that  for  some  hundred  miles  together  there  is  none 
either  to  baptize  or  to  administer  the  Lord's  Supper.  Here,  therefore,  my  scruples 
are  at  an  end ;  and  I  conceive  myself  at  full  liberty,  as  I  violate  no  order,  and  invade 
no  man's  right,  by  appointing  and  sending  labourers  into  the  harvest. 

"  '  4.  I  have,  accordingly,  appointed  Dr.  COKE,  and  Mr.  FRANCIS  ASBURY  to  be 
joint  superintendents  over  our  brethren  in  North  America;  as  also  RICHARD  WHAT- 
COAT  and  THOMAS  VASEY  to  act  as  ciders  among  them,  by  baptizing  and  administer- 
ing the  Lord's  Supper. 

"  '  5.  If  any  one  will  point  out  a  more  rational  and  Scriptural  way  of  feeding  and 
guiding  those  poor  sheep  in  the  wilderness,  I  will  gladly  embrace  it.  At  present  I 
cannot  see  any  better  method  than  that  I  have  taken. 

"  '  6.  It  has  indeed  been  proposed  to  desire  the  English  bishops  to  ordain  part  of 
our  preachers  for  America.  But  to  this  I  object :  (1.)  I  desired  the  bishop  of  Lon- 
don to  ordain  one  only,  but  could  not  prevail.  (2.)  If  they  consented,  we  know  the 
slowness  of  their  proceedings ;  but  the  matter  admits  of  no  delay.  (3.)  If  they 
would  ordain  them  now,  they  would  likewise  expect  to  govern  them.  And  how 
grievously  would  this  entangle  us !  (4.)  As  our  American  brethren  are  now  totally 
disentangled  both  from  the  state  and  from  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare  not  entan- 
gle them  again  either  with  the  one  or  the  other.  They  are  now  at  full  liberty  sim- 
ply to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the  primitive  Church.  And  we  judge  it  best  that 
they  should  stand  fast  in  that  liberty  wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them 
free.— Pp.  22-24.  JOHN  WESLEY.'  " 

I  continue  to  read  on  the  5th  page  of  No.  1,  of  the  Proofs,  and  our  object  in 
reading  this  is  to  show  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  its  origin  in  a  sepa- 
ration, which  did  not  involve  them  in  any  differences  of  doctrine,  or  a  secession  from 
their  English  brethren. 

(i  To  carry  into  effect  the  proposed  organization,  a  General  Conference  of 
preachers  was  called,  to  meet  in  Baltimore  at  Christmas,  1784.  Sixty  out  of  the 
eighty-three  preachers,  then  in  the  travelling  connexion,  attended  at  the  appointed 
time.  '  At  this  conference,'  say  the  Annual  Minutes  for  1785,  '  it  was  unanimously 
agreed  that  circumstances  made  it  expedient  for  us  to  become  a  separate  body, 
under  the  denomination  of  "  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  '  And  again  they 
say,  '  We  formed  ourselves  into  an  independent  Church  ;  and  following  the  counsel 
of  Mr.  John  Wesley,  who  recommended  the  episcopal  mode  of  Church  government, 
we  thought  it  best  to  become  an  episcopal  Church,  making  the  episcopal  office  elec- 
tive, and  the  elected  superintendent  or  bishop  amenable  to  the  body  of  ministers  and 
preachers.'  They  adopted  a  Form  of  Discipline  for  the  government  of  the  Church. 
This  was  substantially  the  same  with  the  Large  Minutes,  the  principal  alterations 
being  only  such  as  were  necessary  to  adapt  it  to  the  state  of  things  in  America.  As 
this  was  the  first  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  CHhrch,  it  is  here  republished 
entire,  together  with  the  portions  of  the  Large  Minutes  which  were  left  out  or  altered. 
Those  parts  of  the  Large  Minutes  which  were  left  out  of  the  Discipline  of  1784,  are  here 
enclosed  in  brackets,  and,  when  the  passages  are  long,  are  printed  in  smaller  type  ; 
while  what  was  contained  in  the  latter,  and  not  in  the  former,  is  printed  in  italics. 
Where  there  has  been  merely  a  substitution  of  one  passage  for  another,  the  language 
of  the  Large  Minutes  is  given  at  the  foot  of  the  page.  The  figures  in  parentheses 
refer  to  the  Large  Minutes. 

"  '  Minutes  of  several  Conversations  between  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  the 
Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  and  others,  at  a  Conference,  begun  in  Baltimore,  in  the 
State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday,  the  27th  of  December,  in  the  year  1784.* 

"  '  Quest.  2.   What  can  be  done  in  order  to  the  future  union  of  the  Methodists  ? 

"  '  Ans.  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his  sons 

*  First  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  compared  with  Large  Minutes. 


32 

in  the  gospel,  ready,  in  mailers  belonging  to  Church  government,  to  obey  his  commands 
And  we  do  encase,  after  his  death,  to  do  everything  that  we  judge  consistent  with  the 
cause  ofrtHgimi*  America  and  the  political  interests  of  these  States,  to  preserve  and 
promote  our  union  irith  the  Methodists  in  Europe. 

••  •  (,),•.*.  3.  Ax  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  affairs  of  these  United  States  havr 
passed  through  a  rcrij  considerable  change  by  the  Rerolution,  what  plan  of  Church  go- 
vernment shall  ire  hereafter  pursue  ? 

••  •  .Ins.  Wre  will  form  ourselves  into  an  Episcopal  Church,  under  the  direction  of 
superintendents,  elders,  deacons,  and  helpers,  according  to  the  forms  of  ordination  an- 
nexed to  our  Liturgy,  and  the  Form  of  Discipline  set  forth  in  these  Minutes. 

"  '  Quest.  4.  (3.)  What  may  we  reasonably  believe  to  be  God's  design  in  raising  up 
the  preachers  called  Methodists  1 

"  '  Ans.  [Not  to  form  any  new  sect  ;  but]  to  reform  the  continent,  [particularly  the 
Church  ;]  and  to  spread  Scriptural  holiness  over  these  lands.' — Pp.  25-27." 

For  the  reasons  before  given,  I  pass  over  the  passages  on  pp.  7,  8,  and  9,  which 
relate  to  slavery,  and  come  to  p.  10. 

"  1787. — In  1787  the  Discipline  underwent  an  entire  change  in  its  form.  It  will 
have  been  perceived,  that  the  first  and  second  editions  consisted  of  a  series  of  ques- 
tions and  answers,  arranged  with  very  little  method.  The  book  was  now  divided 
into  sections,  with  appropriate  heads. — P.  81. 

"  Of  the  Origin  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  1789. — '  SEC.  3.  On  the  Nature  and  Constitution  of  our  Church. 

"  '  We  are  thoroughly  convinced  that  the  Church  of  England,  to  which  we  have 
been  united,  is  deficient  in  several  of  the  most  important  parts  of  Christian  disci- 
pline ;  and  that  (a  few  ministers  and  members  excepted)  it  has  lost  the  life  and 
power  of  religion.  We  are  not  ignorant  of  the  spirit  and  design  it  has  ever 
discovered  in  Europe,  of  rising  to  pre-eminence  and  worldly  dignities  by  virtue  of  a 
national  establishment,  and  by  the  most  servile  devotion  to  the  will  of  temporal  go- 
vernors :  and  we  fear  the  same  spirit  will  lead  the  same  Church  in  these  United 
States  (though  altered  in  its  name)  to  similar  designs  and  attempts,  if  the  number 
and  strength  of  its  members  will  ever  afford  a  probability  of  success  ;  and  particu- 
larly to  obtain  a  national  establishment,  which  we  cordially  abhor  as  the  great  bane 
of  truth  and  holiness,  and  consequently  a  great  impediment  to  the  progress  of  vital 
Christianity. 

"  '  For  these  reasons  we  have  thought  it  our  duty  to  form  ourselves  into  an  inde- 
pendent Church.  And  as  the  most  excellent  mode  of  Church  government,  according 
to  our  maturest  judgment,  is  that  of  a  moderate  episcopacy,  and  as  we  are  persuaded 
that  the  uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops  from  the  apostles  can  be  proved  neither 
from  Scripture  nor  antiquity,  we  therefore  have  constituted  ourselves  into  an  episco- 
pal Church,  under  the  direction  of  bishops,  elders,  deacons,  and  preachers,  according 
to  the  forms  of  ordination  annexed  to  our  Prayer-book,  and  the  regulations  laid  down 
in  this  form  of  Discipline.' 

"  '  SEC.  4.  On  constituting  of  bishops,  and  their  duty. 

"  '  Quest.  1.  What  is  the  proper  origin  of  the  episcopal  authority  in  our  Church  1 
"  '  Ans.  In  the  year  1784  the  Rev.  John  Wesley,  who,  under  God,  has  been  the 
father  of  the  great  revival  of  religion  now  extending  over  the  earth  by  the  means  of 
the  Methodists,  determined,  at  the  intercession  of  multitudes  of  his  spiritual  children 
on  this  continent,  to  ordain  ministers  for  America,  and  for  this  purpose  sent  over 
three  regularly-ordained  clergy ;  but  preferring  the  episcopal  mode  of  Church  go- 
vernment to  any  other,  he  solemnly  set  apart,  by  the  imposition  of  his  hands  and 
prayer,  one  of  them,  namely,  Thomas  Coke,  doctor  of  civil  law,  late  of  Jesus  College, 
in  the  University  of  Oxford,  for  the  episcopal  office  ;  and  having  delivered  to  him 
letters  of  episcopal  orders,  commissioned  and  directed  him  to  set  apart  Francis 
Asbury,  then  general  assistant  of  the  Methodist  Society  in  America,  for  the  same 
episcopal  office,  he,  the  said  Francis  Asbury,  being  first  ordained  deacon  and  elder 
In  consequence  of  which,  the  said  Francis  Asbury  was  solemnly  set  apart  for  the 
said  episcopal  office  by  prayer  and  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  said  Thomas 


33 

Coke,  other  regularly-ordained  ministers  assisting  in  the  sacred  ceremony.  At  which 
time  the  General  Conference  held  at  Baltimore  did  unanimously  receive  the  said 
Thomas  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury  as  their  bishops,  being  fully  satisfied  of  the 
validity  of  their  episcopal  ordination.' — Pp.  93,  94. 

"  Of  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences. 
"Of  the  General  Conference. 

"  Nothing  appears  on  this  subject,  until  1792,  when  the  first  General  Conference, 
after  the  organization  of  the  Church,  was  held.  We  then  find  the  following  : — 

"  1792.  '  Quest.  2.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference  1 

"  '  Ans.  All  the  travelling  preachers  who  shall  be  in  full  connexion  at  the  time  of 
holding  the  Conference. 

"  '  Qv,est.  3.  When  and  where  shall  the  next  General  Conference  be  held  1 

" '  Aiis.  On  the  first  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1796,  in  the  town  of  Baltimore.' 

"  1796.  Question  3,  struck  out. 

';  1800.  An  additional  qualification  for  membership  was  added,  namely  : — to  'have 
travelled  four  years.' 

"  1804.  It  was  provided  that  the  '  four  years  '  should  date  '  from  the  time  that 
they  were  received  on  trial  by  an  annual  conference.' 

"  1808.  This  was  the  last  meeting  of  a  General  Conference,  composed  of  all  the 
preachers  who  had  travelled  four  years.  It  was  then  resolved  to  have,  in  future,  a 
delegated  General  Conference,  and  the  following  was  adopted  as  its  constitution,  in 
lieu  of  the  former  : — 

"  '  Quest.  2.  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regu- 
lations and  powers  belonging  to  it  1 

"  '  A7is.  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every 
five  members  of  each  annual  conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by  seniority  or  choice, 
at  the  discretion  of  such  annual  conference  ;  yet  so  that  such  representatives  shall 
shall  have  travelled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  they  were  re- 
ceived on  trial  by  an  animal  conference,  and  are  in  full  connexion  at  the  time  of 
holding  the  Conference. 

"  '2.  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1812,  in  the  city  of  New- York,  and  thenceforward  on  the  first  day  of  May, 
once  in  four  years  perpetually,  in  such  place  or  places  as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the 
General  Conference  from  time  to  time  :  but  the  general  superintendents,  with  or  by 
the  advice  of  all  the  annual  conferences,  or  if  there  be  no  general  superintendent,  all 
the  annual  conferences  respectively,  shall  have  power  to  call  a  General  Conference, 
if  they  judge  it  necessary,  at  any  time. 

"  '  3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall  take  two-thirds 
of  the  representatives  of  all  the  annual  conferences  to  make  a  quorum  for  transacting 
business. 

"  '  4.  One  of  the  general  superintendents  shall  preside  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence ;  but  in  case  no  general  superintendent  be  present,  the  General  Conference 
shall  choose  a  president  pro  tern. 

"  '  5.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regula- 
tions for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions,  namely  : — 

"  '  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  Articles  of 
Religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine. 

"  '  2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  five  mem- 
bers of  the  annual  conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  seven. 

"  '  3.  They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to 
do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency. 

"  '  4.    They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  general  rules  of  the  United  Societies. 

li  '  5.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial 
by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal  :  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our 
members  of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal. 

"  '  6.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the 
Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  '  uper- 
numerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,and  children. 

"  '  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  joint  recommendation  of  all  the  annual 

3 


conferences,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall 
-utlu-e  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions.' 

••  1816.    The  ratio  of  representation,  in  Ans.  1.,  was  altered  to  one  for  every 


2.  The  former  proviso,  at  the  close  of  the  restrictive  rules,  was  struck  out, 
and  the  following  substituted  :  —  '  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent 
recommendation  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  annual  confer- 
ences, who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  such  recommendation,  then  a  majority  of 
two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference  succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the 
above  restrictions  excepting  the  first  article  ;  and  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or 
alterations  shall  have  been  first  recommended  by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, so  soon  as  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  annual  conferences  shall  have 
concurred  as  aforesaid,  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take  effect.' 

"  1836.  The  ratio  of  representation  was  altered  to  one  for  every  twenty-one  ; 
and  to  allow  this,  the  second  of  the  restrictive  rules  was  changed  to  the  following  :  — 

"  '  2.  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen  mem- 
bers of  the  annual  conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  thirty  : 
provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be  in  any  annual  conference  a  fraction 
of  two-thirds  the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,  such 
annual  conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  fraction  ;  and 
provided,  also,  that  no  conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  two  delegates.' 
—Pp.  111-114. 

"  Bishops  and  their  Duty. 

1792.  '  Quest.  3.  What  is  the  bishop's  duty  1 

'  Ans.  1.  To  preside  in  our  conferences. 

'  2.  To  fix  the  appointments  of  the  preachers  for  the  several  circuits. 

'  3.  In  the  intervals  of  the  conferences  to  change,  receive,  or  suspend  preachers, 
necessity  may  require. 

'  4.  To  travel  through  the  connexion  at  large. 

•  5.  To  oversee  the  spiritual  and  temporal  business  of  the  societies. 

'  6.  To  ordain  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons. 
Quest.  4.  To  whom  is  the  bishop  amenable  for  his  conduct  1 

'  Ans.  To  the  General  Conference,  who  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper 
conduct,  if  they  see  it  necessary. 

"  '  Quest.  5.  What  provision  shall  be  made  for  the  trial  of  an  immoral  bishop,  in 
the  interval  of  the  General  Conference  1 

"  '  Ans.  If  a  bishop  be  guilty  of  immorality,  three  travelling  elders  shall  call  iipon 
him,  and  examine  him  on  the  subject  :  and  if  the  three  elders  verily  believe  that  the 
bishop  is  guilty  of  the  crime,  they  shall  call  to  their  aid  two  presiding  elders  from 
two  districts  in  the  neighbourhood  of  that  where  the  crime  was  committed,  each  of 
which  presiding  elders  shall  bring  with  him  two  ciders,  or  an  elder  and  a  deacon. 
The  above-mentioned  nine  persons  shall  form  a  conference,  to  examine  into  the 
charge  brought  against  the  bishop  ;  and  if  two-thirds  of  them  verily  believe  him  to  be 
guilty  of  the  crime  laid  to  his  charge,  they  shall  have  authority  to  suspend  the  bishop 
till  the  ensuing  General  Conference,  and  the  districts  shall  be  regulated  in  the 
mean  time  as  is  provided  in  the  case  of  the  death  of  a  bishop.'  —  Pp.  121,  122. 

"  1804.  To  the  second  of  the  bishop's  duties  (Question  3)  is  added  this  clause  : 
'  Provided  he  shall  not  allow  any  preacher  to  remain  in  the  same  station  more  than 
two  years  successively  ;  excepting  the  presiding  elders,  the  editor  and  general  book- 
steward,  the  assistant  editor  and  general  book-steward,  the  supernumerary,  super- 
annuated, and  worn  out  preachers.'  To  the  third  is  added,  '  and  as  the  Discipline 
directs.' 

"  In  the  answer  to  Question  5,  the  word  '  guilty,'  in  the  first  line,  is  changed  to 
'  accused,'  and  the  following  clause  is  added  at  the  close  :  —  '  But  no  accusation 
shall  be  received  against  a  bishop  except  it  be  delivered  in  writing,  signed  by  those 
who  are  to  prove  the  crime  :  and  a  copy  of  the  accusation  shall  be  given  to  the  ac- 
cused bishop.'  —  P.  122." 

I  will  now  read,  if  your  Honours  please,  some  extracts  from  the  printed  Journals 
and  Documents  of  the  General  Conference  in  relation  to  the  Canada  Conference.  It 
seems  that  the  Canada  Methodists  separated  from  the  Methodists  of  this  country. 

3* 


35 

The  action  of  the  Methodist  body  on  that  subject  we  have  thought  to  be  material  to 
notice.     I  will  read,  beginning  on  page  32. 

"  MAY  5,  1828. — A  petition  from  the  Canada  Annual  Conference  was  presented  by 
William  Ryerson,  praying  that  they  may  be  separated  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States ;  which 
was,  on  motion,  referred  to  a  special  committee,  to  consist  of  seven  members. 

"  THE    PETITION. 

"  '  To  the  Bishops  and  Members  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  assembled  at  Pittsburgh; — 

"'REVEREND  FATHERS  AND  BRETHREN: — The  Canada  Conference  having,  after 
mature  deliberation,  deemed  a  separation  expedient,  most  humbly  pray  that  they 
may  be  set  off  a  separate  and  independent  Church  in  Canada. 

" '  Your  petitioners  are  induced  to  present  this  their  humble  prayer  for  the  follow- 
ing reasons : — 

"  '  1st.  Our  political  relations,  and  the  political  feelings  of  a  great  part  of  the  com- 
munity, are  such  that  we  labour  under  many  very  serious  embarrassments  on  account 
of  our  union  with  the  United  States ;  from  which  embarrassments  we  would,  in  all 
probability,  be  relieved  by  a  separation. 

"  '  2d.  The  local  circumstances  of  our  societies  in  this  province  ;  the  rapid  increase 
and  extension  of  the  work,  both  among  the  white  inhabitants  and  the  Indians ;  the 
prospects  of  division  among  ourselves,  if  our  present  relation  be  continued — render 
it  necessary  for  us  to  be  under  ecclesiastical  regulations  somewhat  of  a  peculiar 
character,  so  as  to  suit  our  local  circumstances.  These  circumstances,  together 
with  our  being  scattered  over  a  large  country,  render  it  highly  necessary  to  have  a 
superintendent  who  may  devote  himself  exclusively  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  in 
this  province.  By  this  means  he  would  be  identified  with  us,  would  more  sensibly 
feel  our  interests  his  own,  and  his  influence  would  be  proportionably  greater  hi  pre- 
serving us  in  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  and  the  bond  of  peace. 

"  '  3d.  It  is  highly  probable  we  shall  obtain  some  important  religious  privileges  by 
becoming  a  separate  body. 

"  '4th.  In  the  event  of  a  war  between  the  two  nations,  it  would  be  altogether  im- 
practicable for  a  superintendent  to  discharge  the  duties  of  the  office  unless  he  be 
resident  in  this  province. 

"  '  5th.  It  is  the  general  wish  of  our  people  in  this  province  to  become  separate ; 
nor  will  they,  according  to  present  appearances,  be  satisfied  without  such  separation. 

" '  These,  reverend  fathers  and  brethren,  are  some  of  the  principal  reasons  which 
/nduce  us  to  pray  for  an  independent  ecclesiastical  establishment  in  Upper  Canada. 

"  '  Your  petitioners,  likewise,  most  humbly  and  earnestly  solicit  that  the  General 
Conference  may  also  be  pleased, 

" '  1st.  To  maintain  with  the  British  Conference,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  main 
principles  of  the  late  arrangements  with  regard  to  Canada. 

"  '  3d.  That  the  General  Conference  will  appoint  such  an  individual  for  a  superin- 
tendent of  our  societies  in  Canada  as  may  be  nominated  by  the  delegates  of  the 
Canada  Conference. 

"  '  3d.  That  the  Church  in  Canada  may  be  embraced  in  the  general  and  friendly 
principle  recognised  by  the  two  connexions, — "  The  "VVesleyan  Methodists  are  the 
same  in  every  part  of  the  world." 

"  '  4th.  That  the  General  Conference  will,  together  with  an  independent  establish- 
ment, be  pleased  to  grant  your  petitioners  a  portion  of  the  Book  Concern,  of  the 
Chartered  Fund,  and  a  portion  of  the  fund  of  the  Missionary  Society. 

" '  JAMES  RICHARDSON, 

"  '  Scptcmlcr  7,  1827.  Sec.  Canada  Cow/.' 

"MAY  6,  1828. — The  committee  on  the  petition  from  Canada  was  announced  by 
the  chair,  and  consists  of  the  following  members,  to  wit : — 

"  N.  Bangs,  Isaac  Bonny,  Charles  Pitman,  Zachariah  Paddock,  Russel  Bigalow, 
and  Caleb  Leaojj 


36 

"  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Canada  Affairs. 

"  '  The  Committee  on  Canada  Affairs,  to  whom  was  referred  the  petition  of  the 
Canada  Conference  praying  this  General  Conference  to  grant  a  separate  establish- 
ment of  that  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  situated  in  the  Province  of 
Upper  Canada,  under  certain  conditions  expressed  in  said  petition,  beg  leave  to 
report  :— 

"  '  That,  having  heard  the  statements  of  the  delegation  from  the  Canada  Conference 
explanatory  of  the  situation  of  the  Church  in  that  Province,  and  of  the  necessity  and 
expediency  of  the  measure  prayed  for  in  the  petition ;  and  also  considered  the  peti- 
tion itself,  together  with  the  address  of  the  Canada  Conference  to  the  several  annual 
conferences  in  the  United  States,  the  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion,  that, 
liouwc'r  peculiar  may  be  the  situation  of  our  brethren  in  Canada,  and  however  much 
we  may  sympathize  with  them  in  their  present  state  of  perplexity,  this  General  Con- 
ference cannot  consistently  grant  them  a  separate  Church  establishment,  according  to 
the  prayer  of  the  petitioners.  The  committee,  therefore,  recommend  to  the  General 
Conference  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions  : — 

"  '  1 .  That,  inasmuch  as  the  several  annual  conferences  have  not  recommended  it 
to  the  General  Conference,  it  is  unconstitutional,  and  also,  under  the  circumstances, 
inexpedient,  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  for  a  separate  Church  establish- 
ment in  Upper  Canada. 

"  '  2.  That  an  affectionate  circular  address  be  prepared  by  this  General  Conference, 
stating  the  reasons  why  their  request  cannot  be  granted,  and  expressing  the  unabated 
attachment  of  this  Conference  for  their  brethren  in  Canada,  and  their  earnest  desire 
for  their  continuance  with  them  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Church. 

"  '  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

'•  '  PITTSBURGH,  May  12,  1828.  (Signed,)  N.  BANGS,  Chairman.'' 

"  MAY  17. — Rev.  John  Ryerson,  one  of  the  delegates  from  the  Canada  Conference, 
offered  the  following  substitute  for  the  report  under  consideration  : — 

"  '  Whereas  the  Canada  Annual  Conference,  situated  in  the  Province  of  Upper 
Canada,  under  a  foreign  government,  have,  in  their  memorial,  presented  to  this  Con- 
ference the  disabilities  under  which  they  labour,  in  consequence  of  their  union  with 
a  foreign  ecclesiastical  government,  and  setting  forth  their  desire  to  be  set  off  as  a 
separate  Church  establishment  ;  and  whereas  this  General  Conference  disclaim  all 
right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  under  such  circumstances,  except  by  mu- 
tual agreement  : — 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  therefore,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  that  the  compact  existing  between  the  Canada  Annual  Con- 
ference and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  be,  and  hereby  is, 
dissolved  by  mutual  consent. 

"  '  2.  That  our  superintendents  or  superintendent  be,  and  hereby  are,  respectfully 
advised  and  requested  to  ordain  such  person  as  may  be  elected  by  the  Canada  Con- 
ference a  superintendent  for  the  Canada  connexion. 

"  '  3.  That  we  do  hereby  recommend  to  our  brethren  in  Canada  to  adopt  the  form 
of  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  with  such 
modifications  as  their  particular  relations  shall  render  necessary. 

"  '  4.  That  we  do  hereby  express  to  our  Canada  brethren  our  sincere  desire  that 
the  most  friendly  feeling  may  exist  between  them  and  the  connexion  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States. 

"  '  5.  That  the  claims  of  the  Canada  Conference  on  our  Book  Concern  and  Char- 
tered Fund,  and  any  other  claims  they  may  suppose  they  justly  have,  shall  be  left 
open  for  future  negotiation  and  adjustment  between  the  two  connexions. 

G.  R.  JONES. 

"  '  May  \7th.  MOSES  CKUME.' 

"  The  question  on  the  first  resolution  was  decided  in  the  effirmative — 104  for,  and 
43  against  it.  The  other  four  resolutions  were,  on  motion,  referred  to  a  special 
committee,  to  consist  of  five  members.  The  president  reported  the  names  of  the 
committee,  which  were  as  follows  : — 

"  John  Ernory,  Wilbur  Fisk,  G.  R.  Jones,  Beverly  Waugh,  Robert  Paine. 

"  The  committee  reported  as  follows  : — 

"  '  Resolved  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference  as- 


37 

sc.mblcd,  that,  whereas  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America  has  heretofore  been  extended  over  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers in  connexion  with  said  Church  in  the  Province  of  Upper  Canada,  by  mutual 
agreement,  and  by  the  consent  and  desire  of  our  brethren  in  that  province  ;  and 
whereas  this  General  Conference  is  satisfactorily  assured  that  our  brethren  in  the  said 
Province,  under  peculiar  and  pressing  circumstances,  do  now  desire  to  organize 
themselves  into  a  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  friendly  relations  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  therefore  be  it  resolved,  and  it  is 
hereby  resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference 
assembled  : — 

"  '  1.  If  the  annual  conference  in  Upper  Canada,  at  its  ensuing  session,  or  any  suc- 
ceeding session  previously  to  the  next  General  Conference,  shall  definitely  determine 
on  this  course,  and  elect  a  general  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  that  province,  this  General  Conference  does  hereby  authorize  any  one  or  more  of 
the  general  superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
with  the  assistance  of  any  two  or  more  ciders,  to  ordain  such  general  superintendent 
for  the  said  Church  in  Upper  Canada,  provided  always  that  nothing  herein  contained 
be  contrary  to,  or  inconsistent  with,  the  laws  existing  in  the  said  Province  ;  and  pro- 
vided that  no  such  general  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Upper 
Canada,  or  any  of  his  successors  in  office,  shall  at  any  time  exercise  any  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  whatever  in  any  part  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  territories  thereof; 
and  provided  also  that  this  article  shall  be  expressly  ratified  and  agreed  to  by  the  said 
Canada  Annual  Conference,  before  any  such  ordination  shall  take  place. 

'• '  2.  That  the  delegate  who  has  been  selected  by  this  General  Conference  to  attend 
the  ensuing  annual  conference  of  the  British  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connexion,  be, 
and  hereby  is,  instructed  to  express  to  that  body  the  earnest  and  affectionate  desire  of 
this  General  Conference,  that  the  arrangement  made  with  that  Connexion  in  relation  to 
the  labours  of  their  missionaries  in  Upper  Canada  may  still  be  maintained  and  observed. 

" '  3.  That  our  brethren  and  friends,  ministers  or  others,  in  Upper  Canada,  shall  at 
all  times,  at  their  request,  be  furnished  with  any  of  our  books  and  periodical  publica- 
tions on  the  same  terms  with  those  by  which  our  agents  are  regulated  in  furnishing 
them  in  the  United  States  :  and  until  there  shall  be  an  adjustment  of  any  claims 
which  the  Canada  Church  may  have  on  this  connexion,  the  Book  Agents  shall  divide 
to  the  said  Canada  Church  an  equal  proportion  of  any  annual  dividend  which  may  be 
made  from  the  Book  Concern  to  the  several  annual  conferences  respectively  ;  pro- 
vided, however,  that  the  aforesaid  dividend  shall  be  apportioned  to  the  Canada  Church 
only  as  long  as  they  may  continue  to  support  and  patronize  our  Book  Concern,  as  in 
time  past. 

"  '  Respectfully  submitted.  (Signed)  W.  FISK,  Chairman. 

"  '  PITTSBURGH,  May  20,  1828.' 

"  WEDNESDAY  MORNING,  MAY  21. — It  was,  on  motion,  Resolved,  That  the  subject 
of  the  petition  from  the  Canada  Conference  be  resumed  :  Whereupon,  the  resolu- 
tions, as  reported  by  the  last  committee  appointed  on  that  subject,  were  read.  It  was 
then  resolved,  that  the  subject  shall  now  be  considered  and  acted  on. 

"  Samuel  H.  Thompson  moved,  and  it  was  seconded,  that  the  resolutions  as  re- 
ported by  the  committee  be  adopted.  The  question  being  taken,  it  was  decided  in 
the  affirmative — 108  voting  in  favour  of  adoption,  and  22  against  it. 

"  MAY  23. — J.  Emory  moved,  and  it  was  seconded,  that  the  resolution  first  adopted 
on  the  subject  of  the  separation  of  the  Canada  Conference  from  the  Connexion  in  the 
United  States  be  re-considered  ;  and  the  motion  prevailed.  It  was  then  resolved,  on 
motion,  that  this  resolution  be  rescinded. 

"  MAY  4,  1832. — An  address  from  the  delegates  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  of  Canada  was  presented  and  read,  and,  on  motion,  that  part  of  it  relating  to 
the  Book  Concern  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Book  Concern,  and  that  part 
of  it  relating  to  Missions,  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Missions. 

"MAY  18. — On  motion,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  Book  Concern  respecting 
the  Canada  business  was  called  up.  (The  delegates,  Messrs.  William  Case,  Franklin 
Metcalf,  and  William  Ryerson,  having  presented  their  certificates,  which  were  ac- 
cepted.) The  report  of  the  committee  was  then  read,  and  seconded  that  it  be  adopted. 

"  MAY  19. — The  report  on  the  Canada  business  was  called  up,  and,  after  some 
remarks  on  the  subject,  D.  Ostrander  moved  an  amendment,  which  was  withdrawn. 


38 

••  Brothers  Emory,  Ryerson,  and  others,  addressed  the  Conference  on  the  subject 
until  the  hour  of  adjournment. 

••  M  \  Y  21 . — On  motion,  the  consideration  of  the  report  on  the  Canada  business  was 
resumed.  The  report  was  read.  Brother  Case,  one  of  the  delegates  from  Canada, 
requested  that  Brother  Fisk  might  be  permitted  to  address  the  Conference  for  him, 
and  in  his  place,  to  give  his  views  on  the  subject,  which  was  granted, — and  replies 
were  made  by  Brothers  Few,  Ryerson,  &c.,  when  it  was  moved  and  seconded  that 
the  vote  should  be  taken  without  further  debate.  The  question  on  the  first  resolu- 
tion in  the  report  WHS  then  read,  voted,  and  lost — 75  to  130.  On  motion  by  J. 
Emory,  seconded  by  "\V.  Capers,  to  amend  the  report,  such  amendment,  together 
with  the  remaining  items  in  the  report,  were  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  five, 
to  examine  and  report  thereon. 

"  In  the  afternoon  session,  the  select  committee  on  the  Canada  business  was  an- 
nounced by  the  president,  (Bishop  Hedding,) — namely,  D.  Ostrander,  G.  Pickering, 
J.  Emory,  L.  Clark,  and  Abner  Chase. 

••  MAY  23. — The  report  on  the  Canada  business  was  then  read  by  the  secretary, 
and  the  first  resolution  taken  up  for  consideration.  Brothers  Case,  Ostrander,  Cox. 
Wina'ns,  Ryerson,  Emory,  and  others,  spoke  on  the  subject.  The  previous  question 
was  called  for.  Bishop  Soule  requested  leave,  and  stated  some  points.  Brother 
Ostrander  moved  an  amendment,  which  was  adopted.  The  vote  on  the  previous 
question  was  then  taken  and  carried.  It  was  then  moved  to  adopt  the  resolution  as 
amended,  voted  and  carried — 153  to  34.  It  was  then  moved  to  adopt  the  preamble 
to  the  report  ;  an  amendment  was  moved  and  withdrawn.  N.  Bangs  moved  to  take 
the  previous  question — carried.  The  question  on  the  adoption  of  the  preamble  was 
then  taken  and  carried — 103  to  63. 

"  On  motion  of  A.  Branson,  seconded  by  W.  Arnold,  an  amendment  was  proposed, 
which  was  adopted.  The  whole  report  amended,  read  thus,  viz  : — 

li  The  report  of  this  committee  was  made  and  adopted  May  23.  as  follows  : — 

'*  '  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  business  of  the  negotiation  with  the 
delegates  of  the  Canada  Conference  on  the  subject  of  our  Book  Conceni,  having  had 
the  same  under  their  serious  consideration,  are  of  opinion  that,  in  consideration  of 
their  former  relation  to  us,  and  the  friendly  feeling  and  brotherly  affection  which  now 
exist  between  the  two  Connexions,  as  well  as  in  view  of  the  liberal  and  efficient  sup- 
port they  have  formerly  given  to  the  Concern,  an  apportionment  of  the  property  of 
the  Concern  ought  to  be  made  to  them.  But,  as  constitutional  difficulties  art- 
believed  to  be  in  tho  way  of  such  an  appropriation  by  this  Conference,  because  they 
have  not  been  instructed  on  this  subject  by  their  constituents,  according  to  the 
proviso  at  the  end  of  the  restrictive  regulations,  they  beg  leave  to  submit,  for  the 
adoption  of  the  Conference,  the  following  resolutions  : — 

"  '  Resolved,  That  if  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  annual  confer- 
ences who  shall  be  present  and  vote  on  the  subject  shall  concur  herein,  and  as  soon 
as  the  fact  of  such  concurrence  shall  be  certified  by  the  secretaries  of  the  several  an- 
nual conferences,  then  the  book  agents  and  book  committee  in  New-York  shall  be. 
and  they  are  hereby,  authorized  and  directed  to  settle  with  the  agents  of  the  Canada 
Conference,  on  the  following  principles  and  preliminaries,  namely  : — 

"  '  1st.  The  dividend  shall  be  made  according  to  the  proportion  that  the  number  of 
the  travelling  preachers  in  the  Canada  Conference  bears  to  the  number  of  the  travel- 
ling preachers  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  including  in 
both  estimates  the  superannuated  preachers  and  those  on  trial. 

"  '  2d.  The  amount  of  property  to  be  divided  shall  be  reckoned  according  to  the 
first  and  largest  estimate  of  stock  in  the  late  exhibit  of  the  book  agents,  namely, 
$448,745  70£,  deducting  therefrom  debts  due  from  the  Concern,  annuities,  &c., 
estimated  at  §15,728  18,  and  the  whole  of  the  publishing  fund,  amounting  to  816. 
928  28,  making  a  total  deduction  (including  credits  to  be  allowed  M.  Ruter  and  C. 
Holliday)  of  §35,178  77,  and  leaving  an  amount  to  be  divided  of  about  8413,566  93.1 . 

i; '  3d.  That  the  Canada  Conference  shall  receive  a  full  proportion  of  the  unsaleable 
and  saleable  stock,  and  of  the  bad  as  well  as  the  good  debts,  considering  the  stock 
and  debts  in  Canada  that  belong  to  the  Book  Concern  as  so  much  of  the  dividend 
already  paid,  but  to  be  estimated  as  forming  a  part  of  the  general  Book  Concern,  ac- 
cording to  the  manner  of  estimating  the  whole  amount. 

"  '  4.  When  the  adjustment  shall  have  been  made,  according  to  the  foregoing  prelim- 
inaries, it  shall  be  deemed  a  final  settlement  of  all  claims  which  the  Canada  Confer- 


39 


ence  may  be  supposed  to  have  on  the  Book  Concern,  or  any  other  funds  or  property 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  in  virtue  of  their  former 
relation  to  us. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  our  superintendents  be,  and  they  are  hereby,  respectfully  re- 
quested to  present  the  foregoing  preamble  and  resolution  to  the  annual  conferences 
for  their  concurrence,  as  contemplated  in  the  premises. 

"  '  The  committee  beg  leave  also  to  submit  the  following  resolution  : — 

"  'Resolved,  $c.,  That  until  the  will  of  the  annual  conferences  shall  be  ascertained, 
and  a  final  settlement  be  made,  the  Canada  Conference  shall  receive  the  same  equal 
annual  dividend  of  the  profits  of  the  Book  Concern  as  heretofore.' 

"  5th.  A  motion  for  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  was  made,  voted,  and  carried. 

"  On  motion,  The  secretary  is  hereby  directed  to  furnish  the  delegates  from  Canada 
with  a  copy  of  the  decision  of  this  Conference  on  that  business." 

On  page  46  your  Honours  will  find  the  minutes  of  the  committee  on  the  Canada 
claims.  They  are  as  follows : — 

"  Minutes  of  Committee. 

"  CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  May  6,  1836. 

"  Committee  on  Canada  claims  met  on  Friday  evening.  May  6th,  at  the  Preachers' 
Office,  Cincinnati.  Committee  consists  of  R.  Payne,  T.  A.  Morris,  A.  Griffith,  M. 
Richardson,  and  C.  Sherman.  The  whole  committee  present.  C.  Sherman  chosen 
secretary.  Rev.  Mr.  Lord  presented  to  the  committee  a  copy  of  the  resolutions  oi 
the  General  Conference  of  1828  and  of  1832,  on  the  subject  of  an  appropriation  from 
the  Book  Concern  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the  Canada  Conference, 
which  was  read.  (See  Doc.  Nos.  1  and  2.)  Copies  of  the  resolutions  of  the  annual 
conferences,  concurring  or  non-concurring  with  the  General  Conference  resolution, 
were  then  handed  to  the  committee  by  Rev.  B.  Waugh,  and  read.  (See  Doc.  No.  3.) 
The  conferences  concurring  were  as  follow  : — 

New-England  Conference,  held  June,  1832 Ayes  73  Noes  1 

Maine  Conference,  held  July  24,  1832 '      71  '      0 

New-Hampshire  Conference,  held  August  8,   1832 '71  '0 

Oneida  Conference,  held  1833 '77  '2 

Genesee  Conference,  held  July,  1832 '69  '1 

New-York  Conference,  held  June  9,  1833 '142  '13 

Six  conferences.  For  concurrence,     503      Against,  17 

"  The  conferences  non-concurring  were  as  follow : — 

Non-concurring,  66  Concurring,  0 


Kentucky  Conference,  held  Oct.  22,  1832 
Indiana  Conference,  held  October  17,  1832 

Pittsburgh  Conference,  held  Aug.  23,  1832 

South  Carolina  Conference,  held  April  22, 1833.. . 

Mississippi  Conference,  held  May  15,  1833 

Ohio  Conference 

Holstein  Conference,  held  March  29,  1833 

Virginia  Conference,  held  March  6,  1833 

Baltimore  Conference,  held  April  5,  1833 

Philadelphia  Conference,  held  April  24,  1833 

Missouri  Conference 

Georgia  Conference 

Alabama  Conference 

Illinois  Conference 

Tennessee  Conference... 


36 
61 
26 
15 
62 
34 
84 
90 
89 
24 
41 
22 
19 
72 


0 

6 
24 

7 


0 
0 
1 
2 
13 
3 
2 
•2 


Fifteen  conferences  non-concurring. 


Number  for,  741       Against,  96 
17  503 


Whole  number  in  the  several  conferences  against,      758 
"  "  "  "  for,  599 


For,  599 


Majority  against  granting  Canada  claims, 


159 


40 

"  Brother  Case  then  addressed  the  committee,  making  several  remarks  and  state- 
ments in  favour  of  the  claims  being  answered.  Committee  was  then  addressed  by 
brother  Lord.  After  some  information,  obtained  by  brother  Waugh,  committee  ad- 
journed, to  meet  again  next  Tuesday  evening. 

(Signed,)  C.  SHERMAN,  Sec'y. 

"  The  report  of  the  committee  appointed  upon  the  subject  of  the  Canada  claim 
was  presented  and  adopted  May  19,  as  follows: — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  communication  from  the  conference 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  in  British  North  America,  beg  leave  to  report : — 

"  Your  committee  have  given  a  serious,  and  they  trust  a  candid,  attention  to  the 
document  referred  to  them.  They  have  invited  before  them  the  president  of  the 
Canada  Conference,  the  Rev.  William  Lord,  and  the  delegate  from  Canada,  the 
Rev.  William  Case,  and  have  listened  with  pleasure  to  their  remarks,  and  perused 
with  close  attention  a  communication  purporting  to  set  forth  the  grounds  of  these 
claims.  But  inasmuch  as  the  last  General  Conference  did  distinctly  avow  that  con- 
stitutional restrictions  prohibited  their  action,  and  proceeded  to  lay  the  question  be- 
fore the  several  annual  conferences,  in  order  to  obtain  the  decision  of  these  primary 
bodies  upon  the  subject,  your  committee  were  admonished  that  the  task  devolving 
upon  them  is  limited  to  this  single  consideration,  namely,  Have  the  annual  confer- 
ences determined  against  the  claims  of  the  Canada  Conference1? 

"  This  point  is  determined  by  the  votes  of  all  the  annual  conferences,  which,  be- 
ing properly  authenticated,  and  having  been  carefully  examined,  stand  as  follows  : — 

In  favour  of  concurring  with  the  General  Conference  of  1832 599 

Against  concurring 758 

Whole  number  of  votes  taken 1357 

"  This  statement  shows  that,  instead  of  three-fourths  of  the  votes  being  in  favour 
of  obviating  the  constitutional  restrictions,  as  the  Discipline  in  such  cases  requires,  a 
large  majority  have  decided  against  it.  And  this  decision  your  committee  regard  as 
final  and  conclusive  against  these  claims. 

"  But  inasmuch  as  the  General  Conference  have  ever  claimed  and  exercised  the 
right  to  regulate  the  discount  at  which  our  books  may  be  sold  to  wholesale  pur- 
chasers, and  with  a  view  to  an  amicable  and  final  arrangement  of  all  the  difficulties 
which  have  existed  on  this  subject,  and  especially  with  a  sincere  desire  to  go  as 
far  as  justice  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  will  authorize,  to  encourage  and 
perpetuate  the  friendly  and  fraternal  feelings  which  should  ever  exist  between  the 
different  members  of  the  great  Methodist  family,  the  committee  submit  to  the  con- 
sideration, and  for  the  adoption,  of  the  General  Conference  the  following  arrange- 
ment, mutually  agreed  to  by  the  delegates  from  Canada  and  the  book  agents,  and 
which  we  are  assured  will  be  satisfactory  to  our  Canadian  brethren,  if  sanctioned  by 
this  Conference. 

"  Whereas  the  Canada  Conference,  now  in  connexion  with  the  Wesleyan  Method- 
ists of  Great  Britain,  was  formerly  united  to,  and  formed  part  of,  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  ;  and  whereas  the  union,  which  by  mutual  consent  then  subsisted,  was 
dissolved  at  the  earnest  and  repeated  solicitations  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Church  in  Canada,  which  was  definitively  determined  upon  by  an  act  of  the 
Canada  Conference,  who  thereupon  and  subsequently  did  form  a  union  with,  and  be- 
come a  part  of,  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Connexion  ;  and  whereas  there  has  been  a 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Canada  Con- 
ference in  regard  to  the  claim  which  has  been  urged  by  the  Canada  Conference,  of 
an  interest  in,  and  a  portion  of,  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  ;  and  whereas  the  de- 
cision of  the  several  annual  conferences,  to  whom  the  subject  was  referred  by  the  Ge- 
neral Conference  of  1832,  has  been  adverse  to  the  claim  of  the  Canada  Conference, 
and  has  thereby  precluded  any  further  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  the  ground 
of  claim,  as  made  by  the  Canada  Conference  ;  but  whereas  this  General  Conference 
cherishes  an  affectionate  remembrance  of  the  Canada  brethren,  and  is  desirous  to 
manifest  its  fraternal  regard  in  every  suitable  way  ;  and  whereas  the  Canada  Confer- 
ence did,  at  its  last  session,  appoint  its  president,  the  Rev.  William  Lord,  and  the 
Rev.  Egerton  Ryerson,  delegates  to  this  General  Conference  to  negotiate  its  claims 
on  the  Book  Concern,  and  the  Rev.  William  Case,  having  been  duly  appointed  to 


41 

take  the  place  of  Rev.  E.  Ryerson  in  the  negotiation  ;  and  whereas  the  said  Rev. 
William  Lord,  president  of  the  Canada  Conference,  and  the  Rev.  William  Case, 
have  full  powers  to  bring  to  an  amicable  termination  the  question  pending  between 
the  two  connexions,  therefore  it  is  hereby  declared  to  be  mutually  understood  and 
agreed,  that  the  following  plan  shall  be  considered  as  an  arrangement  for  the  full  and 
final  adjustment  and  settlement  of  the  matter  at  issue  between  the  Canada  Confer- 
ence and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  to  wit,  The  agents  of  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern  shall  furnish  to  the  book-steward  of  the  Canada  Conference  any  of 
the  books  which  may  be  issued  from  its  press  at  the  following  rates,  subject  to  the 
conditions  and  provisions  hereinafter  named  : — 

"  1.  The  general  alphabetical  catalogue  books,  whether  in  sheets  or  bound,  shall 
be  sold  at  forty  per  cent,  discount  from  the  retail  prices,  as  long  as  the  present  dis- 
count of  one-third  shall  be  made  to  wholesale  purchasers  ;  but  should  the  discount 
be  hereafter  changed  to  one-fourth,  then,  in  that  case,  the  books  sold  to  the  book- 
steward  of  the  Canada  Conference  shall  be  charged  at  a  discount  of  one-third  from 
the  retail  prices  which  shall  from  time  to  time  be  affixed  to  them  respectively.  Pro- 
vided that  this  discount  shall  not  apply  to  such  books  as  may  be  reduced  below  the 
usual  prices  on  account  of  rival  publishers ;  and  provided,  also,  that  the  Canada 
Conference  shall  give  satisfactory  security  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  any  debt 
which  may  be  contracted  with  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  within  one  year  from 
the  time  such  debt  may  be  created.  And  it  is  also  expressly  understood  and  agreed, 
that  no  interest  shall  be  demanded  or  paid  on  any  such  debts,  unless  payment  shall 
be  delayed  beyond  the  period  of  credit  before  named,  in  which  event  interest  shall  be 
charged  and  paid,  from  and  after  the  expiration  of  said  credit  term.  It  is  also  further 
provided,  that  all  books  which  may  be  ordered  by  the  book-steward  of  the  Canada 
Conference  shall  be  at  the  risk  and  expense  of  the  said  Conference,  from  the  time 
they  shall  be  forwarded  from  the  Methodist  Book  Concern. 

"  2.  Sunday-school  books  and  tracts  shall  be  furnished  to  the  book-steward  of  the 
Canada  Conference  at  a  premium  of  eighteen  per  cent.,  to  be  paid  in  general  cata- 
logue books  at  retail  prices  ;  and  it  is  hereby  declared  to  be  understood  and  agreed, 
that  the  same  provisions  and  conditions  are  to  be  adjudged  applicable  to  Sunday- 
school  books  and  tracts  as  have  been  specified  above  in  regard  to  books  generally. 

"  3.  It  is  understood  and  agreed,  that  the  privileges  herein  secured  to  the  Canada 
Conference  shall  be  binding  on  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  until  the  first  day  of 
May,  1852,  next  ensuing  the  present  date  ;  Provided,  also,  that  the  said  Canada 
Conference  shall  regularly  and  truly  make  annual  settlements  to  the  satisfaction  of 
the  agents  of  the  Methodist  Book-Concern,  and  not  otherwise. 

"  4.  Finally,  it  is  hereby  mutually  understood  and  agreed,  that  the  foregoing  ar- 
rangement is  considered  as  a  full,  and  definite,  and  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the 
question  which  has  arisen  between  the  Canada  Conference  and  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  on  the  subject  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern. 

"  In  testimony  whereof,  the  agents  of  the  Methodist  Book-Concern,  and  the  dele- 
gates of  the  Canada  Conference,  have  mutually  affixed  their  respective  signatures, 
this  eighteenth  day  of  May,  1836,  in  the  city  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

(Signed)  B.  WAUGH  &  T.  MASON,  Agents. 

WILLIAM  LORD,  )  Delegates  from 
WILLIAM  CASE,  C         Canada. 

"  MAY  23,  1832. — On  motion  of  P.  Akers,  which  was  seconded,  Resolved,  that  a 
copy  of  the  resolution  of  the  last  General  Conference  by  which  the  Canada  Confer- 
ence was  allowed  to  dissolve  connexion  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  ;  and  also  a  copy  of  the  acts  of  this  General  Conference  on  Canada 
affairs,  accompany  the  resolutions  about  to  be  presented  to  the  annual  confer- 
ences." 

I  propose  now,  if  your  Honours  please,  to  return  to  page  43,  and  to  read  from 
that  and  subsequent  pages  an  address  from  the  Canada  Conference,  held  in  1833, 
to  show  that,  notwithstanding  their  separation,  the  parties  treated  each  other  as 
members  of  the  same  body — the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — for  all  practical  pur- 
poses. 


42 

"  To  the  Bishops  and  Members  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States. 

••  REVEREND  FATHERS  AND  BRETHREN  : — We  rejoice  to  avail  ourselves  of  this  oc- 
casion to  declare,  in  the  words  of  the  venerable  Wesley  in  his  last  letter  to  America, 
'  that  the  Methodists  are  one  people  in  all  the  world,  and  that  it  is  their  full  deter- 
mination so  to  continue, — 

"  Though  mountains  rise,  and  oceans  roll, 
To  sever  us  in  vain." ' 

"  In  connexion  with  you,  we  were  born  and  nourished  ;  in  connexion  with  you,  we 
have  laboured  and  prospered  ;  and  from  your  example  and  liberality,  and  the  coun- 
sels of  two  of  your  venerable  bishops,  and  several  of  your  highly  esteemed  preachers. 
we  have  derived  assistance  and  advantages  which  have  enabled  us  greatly  to  extend 
the  work  of  God  in  this  new  country,  and  the  grateful  recollection  of  which  will 
never  be  effaced  from  our  minds. 

••  When  the  full  period  arrived  in  1828,  in  which  the  welfare,  harmony,  and  safety 
of  our  Church  rendered  it  expedient  for  us  to  be  organized  into  a  separate  and  inde- 
pendent body,  you  candidly  took  into  consideration  our  local  circumstances,  and 
generously  complied  with  our  wishes — and,  at  the  same  time  continued  to  us  the 
expression  of  your  kindness  and  liberality.  That  separation,  however,  was  not  on 
our  part,  any  more  than  on  yours,  a  separation  of  doctrine,  of  discipline,  of  motive,  or 
of  affection,  but  only  of  political,  geographical,  and  ecclesiastical  boundary.  Still 
"with  you  we  were  one  in  heart,  in  aim,  in  doctrine,  and  discipline.  Under  the 
influence  of  this  conviction  and  feeling,  we  sought  to  obtain  a  general  superintendent 
from  your  connexion,  and  made  successive  applications  to  no  less  than  four  members 
of  your  conference  to  fill  that  highly  important  office  over  us.  But  all  our  applica- 
tions were  unsuccessful,  and  our  efforts  to  establish  and  settle  our  economy  were 
fruitless.  In  this  unsettled  state  of  anxious  suspense,  we  have  been  involved  for  the 
last  five  years,  during  which  time  we  have  been  with  difficulty,  but  mercifully,  pre- 
served from  agitation,  division,  and  encroachment.  Providence  has  at  length  opened 
the  way  for  the  settlement  of  our  economy  upon  a  permanent  foundation.  By  the 
large  influx  of  British  emigration  to  this  province,  and  especially  of  persons  who  had 
been  connected  with  Methodist  societies  and  congregations  in  Great  Britain  and 
Ireland,  the  attention  of  the  Wesleyan  Missionary  Committee  in  London  was  particu- 
larly attracted,  and  pressing  appeals  were  made  to  the  Christian  feelings  and  bene- 
volence of  the  British  Conference  from  many  of  their  former  flocks  for  a  supply  of 
those  ordinances  which  they  had  enjoyed  in  the  land  of  their  fathers.  These  circum- 
stances, together  with  the  admitted  and  notorious  fact  of  our  inadequacy  as  a  body, 
both  in  regard  to  men  and  means,  to  supply  all  the  religious  wants  of  the  white 
settlements  and  Indian  tribes,  induced  the  Wesleyan  Missionary  Committee  about  a 
year  since  to  determine  on  sending  a  number  of  missionaries  into  Upper  Canada. 
For  this  purpose  the  committee  sent  the  Rev.  Robert  Alder  as  their  representative 
to  this  province,  to  inquire  into  its  religious  condition.  Between  Mr.  Alder  and- this 
conference  a  negotiation  was  commenced,  which  has  now  resulted  in  a  union 
between  the  Canadian  and  British  connexion.  This  measure  has  been  accomplished 
upon  a  principle  of  perfect  equality,  without  any  sacrifice  of  principle  or  independence 
on  either  side,  and  with  merely  those  changes  in  one  or  two  features  of  the  pruden- 
tial part  of  our  economy,  '  which  our  local  circumstances  require,' — as  stated  and 
provided  for  in  the  articles  of  separation  from  your  connexion  in  1828.  So  that, 
without  departing  from  either  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  resolutions  of  your  body,  in 
generously  granting  our  request  for  a  separation,  we  have,  through  the  Divine  bless- 
ing, been  enabled  to  adopt  a  plan — the  only  and  most  efficient  plan — by  which  divi- 
sions may  be  prevented  among  our  own  societies,  and  misunderstandings  with  others  ; 
a  plan  which  will  secure  the  unity  of  Methodism  throughout  the  province,  and  bring 
to  our  assistance  a  large  addition  of  means  and  men  to  carry  on  the  work  of  the  Lord 
among  the  white  population  and  the  Indian  tribes  of  North  America  ;  a  plan  which 
'i  adopted  unanimously  and  cordially  both  by  this  and  the  British  Conference. 

In  this  providential  and  gracious  opening  we  recognise  the  peculiar  hand  of  God, 
and  we  arc  persuaded  you  will  rejoice  with  us  in  thus  witnessing  Methodism  through- 
out the  British  empire,  as  throughout  the  United  States,  connected  in  a  common 
bond  of  union,  and  sustained  and  extended  under  a  common  management.  Nor  are 


43 

we  in  this  necessary  and  beneficial  arrangement  the  less  united  and  grateful  to  you 
as  our  fathers,  brethren,  and  benefactors  ;  and  we  devoutly  hope  that  no  circum- 
stance will  occur  which  may  tend  to  weaken  our  mutual  confidence  and  affection  in 
the  final  adjustment  of  those  claims,  the  justice  of  which  has  been  recognised  and 
sanctioned  by  the  majority  of  your  body  at  two  successive  sessions. 

"  We  shall  rejoice  to  co-operate  with  you,  and  to  assist  you  with  native  labourers,  as 
'far  as  in  our  power,  until,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  the  Western  wilderness  shall  be 
illuminated  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel,  and  the  banners  of  the  Lamb  shall  be  unfurled 
to  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

"  We  enjoy  perfect  harmony  and  peace  throughout  all  our  borders,  and  great  pros- 
perity in  many  places.  Our  Church  members  amount  to  16,039,  and  the  blessings 
of  the  Lord  our  God  are  abundantly  upon  us.  We  rejoice  to  hear  of  your  great 
success,  and  most  devoutly  pray  that  you  may  go  on  prospering  more  and  more. 

"  By  order  and  on  behalf  of  the  Conference  of  the  Wesleyan  Methodist  Church  in 
British  North  America. 

(Signed)  "-GEORGE  MARSDEX,  President. 

EGERTON  RYERSOX,  Secretary. 

"  YORK,  UPPER  CANADA,  October  9, 1833." 

I  will  read  next,  if  your  Honours  please,  a  few  extracts  in  relation  to  alterations 
which  have  taken  place  from  time  to  time  in  the  restrictive  rules : — 

"MAY  22,  1828. — W.  Fisk,  for  the  committee  to  which  had  been  referred  the 
subject  of  recommending  to  the  annual  conferences  some  alterations  in  the  restrictive 
rules,  reported.  The  time  of  adjournment  being  near,  it  was  moved  and  seconded 
to  extend  the  session  until  six  o'clock,  and  the  motion  was  lost.  It  was  then  re- 
solved, on  motion,  to  extend  the  session  for  fifteen  minutes.  During  the  discussion, 
the  time  of  adjournment  having  nearly  arrived,  it  was  resolved,  on  motion,  to  extend 
it  ten  minutes.  A  division  of  the  above  report  was  called  for;  and  the  question 
being  taken  on  the  first  part,  it  was  carried.  The  vote  was  then  taken  on  the  second 
and  last  part,  and  that  was  also  carried. 

"  And  then  the  Conference  adjourned. 

"  The  following  is  the  report  referred  to  above : — 

"  '  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  embraced  in  a  resolution  sug- 
gesting the  propriety  of  providing  for  the  alteration  of  one  of  the  rules  commonly 
called  the  restrictive  rules,  beg  leave  to  report  the  following  resolution : — 

"  '  Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  respectfully  suggest  to  the  several 
annual  conferences  the  propriety  of  recommending  to  the  next  General  Conference 
so  to  alter  and  amend  the  rules  of  our  Discipline,  by  which  the  General  Conference 
is  restricted  in  its  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  commonly 
called  the  restrictive  rules,  as  to  make  the  proviso  at  the  close  of  the  restrictive 
rules,  No.  6,  read  thus, — 

"  '  Provided  nevertheless,  That  upon  the  concurrent  recommendation  of  three- 
fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  annual  conferences  who  shall  be  present 
and  vote  on  such  recommendation,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Con- 
ference succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  such  regulations  excepting  the  first 
article. 

"  '  And  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have  first  been  recom- 
mended by  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  so  soon  as  three-fourths  of  the 
members  of  the  annual  conferences  shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid  with  such  re- 
commendation, such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  take  effect. 

"' All  which  is  respectfully  submitted.  W.  FISK,   Chairman.' 

"  MAY  22,  1832.. — The  Committee  on  the  Itinerancy  beg  leave  to  report  the  fol- 
lowing, as  the  result  of  their  deliberations  on  the  subject  recommended  to  them,  viz. : 

"  '  I.  Resolved,  That  this  General  Conference  recommend  to  the  several  annual  con- 
ferences for  their  concurrence  and  adoption,  as  provided  in  the  sixth  article  of  the 
restrictive  rules,  the  following  resolution  to  amend  the  second  article  of  the  said 
restrictive  rules : — 

"  '  II.  Resolved,  That  the  second  article  of  the  restrictive  rules  be  so-  altered  as  to 
read, — 


44 

"  t  ..  They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen 
members  of  the  annual  conference,  nor  allow  for  less  number  than  one  for  every 
thirty :  provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be  in  any  annual  conference  a 
fraction  of  two-thirds  the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation, 
such  annual  conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  fraction. 
And  provided,  also,  that  no  conference  shall  be  deprived  the  privilege  of  two  dele- 
gates." 

•• '  III.  Rcsohed,  That  the  secretary  furnish  each  of  the  bishops  with  a  copy  of 
these  resolutions,  and  they  are  hereby  respectfully  requested  to  present  the  same  to 
the  several  annual  conferences,  or  cause  the  same  to  be  presented  at  their  next  ses- 
sion, for  their  concurrence ;  and  where  the  bishops  or  any  two  of  the  bishops  shall 
have  ascertained  that  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several  annual  confer- 
ences voting  in  the  case  have  concurred  with  this  General  Conference,  they  shall 
certify  the  same,  and  cause  such  certificate  to  be  printed  in  the  minutes,  and  pub- 
lished three  successive  weeks  in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal. 

"  '  IV.  Resolved,  That  the  ratio  of  representation  for  the  next  General  Conference 
be  one  for  every  fourteen,  provided  the  annual  conferences  concur  in  the  alteration 
as  above  recommended  by  this  conference. 

"  'And  that  the  Discipline  in  Section  3,  Answer  1  to  Question  2,  on  page  19, 
shall  thereupon  be  so  altered  as  to  read, — 

"  ' "  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every  four- 
teen members  of  each  annual  conference,"  '  &c. 

"1836. — The  ratio  of  representation  was  altered  to  one  for  every  twenty-one: 
and  to  allow  this,  the  second  of  the  restrictive  rules  was  changed  to  the  follow- 
ing:— 

"  'They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen  mem- 
bers of  the  annual  conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  thirty  : 
provided,  nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be  in  any  annual  conference  a  fraction 
of  two-thirds  the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,  such 
annual  conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  fraction ;  and 
provided,  also,  that  no  conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  two  delegates,'  " 

Now,  if  your  Honours  please,  I  will  read  what  relates  to  the  subject  of  slavery. 
I  will  first  read  what  appears  in  the  Discipline  as  it  stands  on  that  subject.  And  first 
what  is  contained  in  the  Discipline  of  1840,  under  which,  in  fact,  all  these  difficulties 
arose. 

"  Of  Slavery. 

"  Quest.  What  shall  be  done  for  the  extirpation  of  the  evil  of  slavery  1 

"Ans.  1.  We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of 
slavery  :  therefore  no  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our 
Church  hereafter,  where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  eman- 
cipation, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom. 

"  2.  When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any 
means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if 
it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  winch  he  lives. 

"  3.  All  our  preachers  shall  prudently  enforce  upon  our  members  the  necessity  of 
teaching  their  slaves  to  read  the  word  of  God  ;  and  to  allow  them  time  to  attend 
upon  the  public  worship  of  God  on  our  regular  days  of  divine  service. 

"  4.  Our  coloured  preachers  and  official  members  ^hall  have  all  the  privileges  which 
are  usual  to  others  in  the  district  and  quarterly  conferences,  where  the  usages  of  the 
country  do  not  forbid  it.  And  the  presiding  elder  may  hold  for  them  a  separate  dis- 
trict conference,  where  the  number  of  coloured  local  preachers  will  justify  it. 

"  5.  The  annual  conferences  may  employ  coloured  preachers  to  travel  and  preach 
where  their  services  are  judged  necessary  ;  provided  that  no  one  shall  be  so  em- 
ployed without  having  been  recommended  according  to  the  form  of  Discipline. — Pp. 
209,  210." 

Now  I  turn,  your  Honours,  to  the  extracts  from  "Minutes  of  several  Conversations 
between  the  Rev.  Thomas  Coke,  LL.D.,  the  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  and  others, 
at  a  Conference  begun  in  Baltimore,  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  on  Monday,  the  27th 


45 

December,  in  the  year  1784."   This  is  the  first  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  adopted  at  what  is  called  the  "  Christmas  Conference." 

"  '  Quest.  41.  Are  (here  any  directions  to  be  given  concerning  the  negroes  ? 

"  '  Ans.  Let  every  preacher,  as  often  as  possible,  meet  them  in  class.  And  let  the 
assistant  always  appoint  a  proper  white  person  as  their  leader.  Let  the  assistants  also 
make  a  regular  return  to  theconfercnce  of  the  number  of  negroes  in  society  in  their 
respective  circuits. 

"  '  Quest.  42.     What  methods  can  we  take  to  extirpate  slavery  ? 

"  '  Ans.  We  are  deeply  conscious  of  the  impropriety  of  making  new  terms  of  com- 
munion for  a  religious  society  already  established,  excepting  on  the  most  pressing  oc- 
casion :  and  such  we  esteem  the  practice  of  holding  our  fellow-creatures  in  slavery. 
We  view  it  as  contrary  to  the  golden  law  of  God  on  which  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  and  the  unalienable  rights  of  mankind,  as  well  as  every  principle  of  the  re- 
volution, to  hold  in  the  deepest  debasement,  in  a  more  abject  slavery  than  is  perhaps  to  be. 
found  in  any  part  of  tlic  world  except  America,  so  many  souls  that  are  all  capable  of 
the  image  of  God. 

"  '  We  therefore  think  it  our  most  boundcn  duty  to  take  immediately  some  effectual 
method  to  extirpate  this  abomination  from  among  us  :  and  for  that  purpose  we  add  the 
folloicing  to  the  rules  of  our  society,  viz  : — 

"  '  1 .  Every  member  of  our  society  who  has  slaves  in  his  possession,  shall,  within 
twelve  months  after  notice  given  to  him  by  the  assistant,  (which  notice  the  assistants 
are  required  immediately,  and  without  any  delay,  to  give  in  their  respective  circuits,) 
legally  execute  and  record  an  instrument,  ichereby  he  emancipates  and  sets  free  every 
slave  in  his  possession  who  is  between  the  ages  of  forty  and  forty-five  immediately,  or 
at  farthest  when  they  arrive  at  the  age  of  forty-five. 

"  '  And  even/  slave  who  is  between  the  ages  of  twenty-five  and  forty  immediately,  or 
at  farthest  at  the  expiration  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  the  said  instrument. 

"  '  And  evert/  slave  who  is  between  the  ages  of  twenty  and  twenty-five  immediately, 
or  at  farthest  when  they  arrive  at  the  age  of  thirty. 

"  '  And  every  slave  under  the  age  of  twenty,  as  soon  as  they  arrive  at  the  age  of 
twenty-five  at  farthest. 

"  '  And  every  infant  born  in  slavery  after  the  above-mentioned  rules  are  complied 
with,  immediately  on  its  birth. 

"  '  2.  Every  assistant  shall  keep  a  journal,  in  which  he  shall  regularly  minute  down 
the  names  and  ages  of  all  the  slaves  belonging  to  all  the  masters  in  his  respective 
circuit,  and  also  the  date  of  every  instrument  executed  and  recorded  for  the  manumis- 
sion of  the  slaves,  with  the  name  of  the  court,  book,  and  folio,  in  which  the  said  instru- 
ments respectively  shall  have  been  recorded  :  which  journal  shall  be  handed  down  in 
each  circuit  to  the  succeeding  assistants. 

"  '  3.  In.  consideration  that  these  rules  form  a  new  term  of  communion,  every  person 
concerned,  who  will  not  comply  with  them,  shall  have  liberty  quietly  to  withdraw  him- 
self from  our  society  within  the  twelve  months  succeeding  the  notice  given  as  afore- 
said :  otherwise  the  assistant  shall  exclude  him  in  the  society. 

"  '  4.  No  person  so  voluntarily  withdrawn,  or  so  excluded,  shall  ever  partake  of  the 
supper  of  the  Lord  with  the  Methodists,  till  he  complies  with  the  above  requisitions. 

"  '  5.  No  person  holding  slaves  shall,  in  future,  be  admitted  into  society  or  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  till  he  previously  complies  with  these  rules  concerning  slavery. 

"  '  AT.  B.  These  rules  are  to  affect  the  members  of  our  society  no  farther  than  as  they 
are  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  reside. 

"  '  And  respecting  ovr  brethren  in  Virginia  that  are  concerned,  and  after  due  con* 
sideration  of  their  peculiar  circumstances,  we  allow  them  two  years  from  the  notice 
given,  to  consider  the  expedience  of  compliance  or  non-compliance  with  these  rules. 

"  '  Quest.  43.  What  shall  be  done  with  those  who  buy  or  sell  slaves,  or  give  them  away  ? 

"  '  Ans.  They  arc  immediately  to  be  expelled  :  unless  they  buy  them  on  purpose  to 
free  them.' — Pp.  42-44." 

That  your  Honours  will  see  was  done  by  the  conference  which  commenced  its 
meeting  in  December  of  1784.  It  was  the  annual  conference.  There  was  no  Gene- 
ral Conference  at  the  time  it  was  first  organized.  It  was  the  act  of  the  body  of  the 
Church  represented  by  all  its  preachers. 

The  next  annual  conference  met  in  1785. 


46 

"  1785. At  the  annual  conferences  for  1785,  it  was  concluded  that  the  rule  on 

>lavorv.  adopted  at  the  Christmas  Conference,  would  do  harm.     It  was,  therefore, 

i  to  Misjx'iid  its  execution  for  the  present,  and  a  note  to  that  effect  was  added 

annual  minutes  for  that  year.     The  conferences,  however,  still  expressed  'the 

•  abhorrence'  of  'the  practice,'  and  a  determination  ' to  seek  its  destruction 

by  all  wise  and  prudent  means.' — P.  80." 

This  provision  never  re-appeared,  as  I  am  instructed,  in  any  future  discipline. 
I  turn  now  to  page  20  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs,  which  contains  extracts  on  this 
subject  from  Emory's  History  of  the  Discipline, 

"For  the  provisions  on  this  subject  prior  to  1784,  see  pp.  14,  15,  19,  21,  22.  For 
the  rules  adopted  at  the  Christmas  Conference,  see  pp.  43,  44.  Not  more  than  six 
months  had  elapsed  after  the  adoption  of  these  last  rules  before  it  was  thought  neces- 
sary to  suspend  them.  Accordingly,  in  the  annual  minutes  for  1785  the  following 
notice  was  inserted : — 

"  '  It  is  recommended  to  all  our  brethren  to  suspend  the  execution  of  the  minute 
on  slavery  till  the  deliberations  of  a  future  conference ;  and  that  an  equal  space  of 
time  be  allowed  all  our  members  for  consideration,  when  the  minute  shall  be  put  in 
force. 

"  '  N.  B.  We  do  hold  in  the  deepest  abhorrence  the  practice  of  slavery ;  and  shall 
not  cease  to  seek  its  destruction  by  all  wise  and  prudent  means.' 

"This  note  does  not  seem  to  refer  to  Question  43,  (1784,)  as  it,  with  the  same 
answer,  was  retained  in  the  Discipline  of  1786.  From  this  till  1796  no  mention,  it 
would  seem,  was  made  of  the  subject  except  in  the  General  Rules.  (See  p.  181.)" 

From  the  General  Rules  of  the  Society  I  will  read  an  extract : — Discipline  of 
1840,  p.  80  :— 

"  There  is  only  one  condition  previously  required  of  those  who  desire  admission 
into  these  societies,  '  a  desire  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,  and  to  be  saved  from 
their  sins.'  But,  wherever  this  is  really  fixed  in  the  soul,  it  will  be  shown  by  its 
fruits.  It  is  therefore  expected  of  all  who  continue  therein,  that  they  should  con- 
tinue to  evidence  their  desire  of  salvation, 

"  First,  by  doing  no  harm,  by  avoiding  evil  of  every  kind,  especially  that  which  is 
most  generally  practised ;  such  as, 

"  The  taking  the  name  of  God  in  vain. 

"  The  profaning  the  day  of  the  Lord,  either  by  doing  ordinary  work  therein,  or  by 
buying  or  selling. 

"  Drunkenness :  or  drinking  spirituous  liquors,  unless  in  case  of  necessity. 

"  The  buying  and  selling  of  men,  women,  and  children,  with  an  intention  to  en- 
slave them. 

"  Fighting,  quarrelling,  brawling,  brother  going  to  law  with  brother ;  returning 
evil  for  evil ;  or  railing  for  railing ;  the  using  many  words  in  buying  or  selling. 

"  The  buying  or  selling  goods  that  have  not  paid  the  duty. 

"  The  giving  or  taking  things  on  usury,  i.  e.,  unlawful  interest. 

" Uncharitable  or  unprofitable  conversation:  particularly  speaking  evil  of  magis- 
trates or  of  ministers. 

"  Doing  to  others  as  we  would  not  they  should  do  unto  us." 

I  have  read  sufficient  to  show  how  it  was  then  considered.  On  page  21  of  the 
First  of  the  Proofs  we  have  the  following : — 

'  1796. — The  following  section  was  introduced  on  the  subject : — 
"  Quest.  What  regulations  shall  be  made  for  the  extirpation  of  the  crying  evil  of 
African  slavery  ? 

"Arts.  1.  We  declare  that  we  are  more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of 
the  African  slavery  which  still  exists  in  these  United  States,  and  do  most  earnestly 
recommend  to  the  yearly  conferences,  quarterly  meetings,  and  to  those  who  have  the 
oversight  of  districts  and  circuits  to  be  exceedingly  cautious  what  persons  they  admit 
to  official  stations,  to  require  such  security  of  those  who  hold  slaves,  for  the  eman- 
cipation of  them,  immediately  or  gradually,  as  the  laws  of  the  States  respectively, 


47 

nnd  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  will  admit ;  and  we  do  fully  authorize  all  the 
yearly  conferences  to  make  whatever  regulations  they  judge  proper,  in  the  present 
case,  respecting  the  admission  of  persons  to  official  stations  in  our  Church." 

We  call  your  Honours'  attention  to  this  because  it  is  one  of  the  strongest  expres- 
sions made  use  of  to  meet  the  difficulty.  In  case  of  future  admissions  to  official 
station,  security  was  to  be  required  of  those  who  held  slaves  for  the  emancipation 
of  them,  immediately  or  gradually,  as  the  laws  of  the  States  respectively,  and  the 
circumstances  of  the  case,  will  admit. 

"  '2.  No  slaveholder  shall  be  received  into  society  till  the  preacher  who  has  the 
oversight  of  the  circuit  has  spoken  to  him  freely  and  faithfully  on  the  subject  of 
slavery. 

"  '  Every  member  of  the  society  who  sells  a  slave  shall  immediately,  after  full 
proof,  be  excluded  the  society.  And  if  any  member  of  our  society  purchase  a  slave, 
the  ensuing  quarterly  meeting  shall  determine  on  the  number  of  years  in  which  the 
slave  so  purchased  would  work  out  the  price  of  his  purchase.  And  the  person  so 
purchasing  shall,  immediately  after  such  determination,  execute  a  legal  instrument 
for  the  manumission  of  such  slave,  at  the  expiration  of  the  term  determined  by  the 
quarterly  meeting.  And  in  default  of  his  executing  such  instrument  of  manumission, 
or  on  his  refusal  to  submit  his  case  to  the  judgment  of  the  quarterly  meeting,  such 
member  shall  be  excluded  the  society.  Provided  also,  that  in  the  case  of  a  female 
slave,  it  shall  be  inserted  in  the  aforesaid  instrument  of  manumission,  that  all  her 
children  who  shall  be  born  during  the  years  of  her  servitude,  shall  be  free  at  the  fol- 
lowing times,  namely ;  every  female  child  at  the  age  of  twenty-one,  and  every  male 
child  at  the  age  of  twenty-five.  Nevertheless,  if  the  member  of  our  society  execut- 
ing the  said  instrument  of  manumission,  judge  it  proper,  he  may  fix  the  times  of 
manumission  of  the  children  of  the  female  slaves  before  mentioned  at  an  earlier  age 
than  that  which  is  prescribed  above. 

" '  4.  The  preachers  and  other  members  of  our  society  are  requested  to  consider 
the  subject  of  negro  slavery  with  deep  attention  till  the  ensuing  General  Con- 
ference :  and  that  they  impart  to  the  General  Conference,  through  the  medium  of 
the  yearly  conferences,  or  otherwise,  any  important  thoughts  upon  the  subject,  that 
the  conference  may  have  full  light,  in  order  to  take  further  steps  towards  the  eradi- 
cating this  enormous  evil  from  that  part  of  the  Church  of  God  to  which  they  are 
united.' 

"  1800. — The  following  new  paragraphs  were  inserted : — 

"  '  2.  When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any 
means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if 
it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives. 

" '  The  annual  conferences  are  directed  to  draw  up  addresses  for  the  gradual  eman- 
cipation of  the  slaves,  to  the  legislatures  of  those  States  in  which  no  general  laws 
have  been  passed  for  that  purpose.  These  addresses  shall  urge,  in  the  most 
respectful,  but  pointed  manner,  the  necessity  of  a  law  for  the  gradual  emancipation 
of  the  slaves  ;  proper  committees  shall  be  appointed,  by  the  annual  conferences,  out 
of  the  most  respectable  of  our  friends,  for  the  conducting  of  the  business  ;  and  the 
presiding  elders,  elders,  deacons,  and  travelling  preachers,  shall  procure  as  many 
proper  signatures  as  possible  to  the  addresses,  and '  give  all  the  assistance  in  their 
power  in  every  respect  to  aid  the  committees,  and  to  further  this  blessed  under- 
taking. Let  this  be  continued  from  year  to  year,  till  the  desired  end  be  accom- 
plished.' 

"  1804. — The  following  alterations  were  made  : — 

"  The  question  reads, — '  What  shall  be  done  for  the  extirpation  of  the  evil  of 
slavery!' 

"  In  paragraph  1  (1796)  instead  of  '  more  than  ever  convinced,'  we  have  '  as  much 
as  ever  convinced;'  and  instead  of  'the  African  slavery  which  still  exists  in  these 
United  States,'  we  have  '  slavery.' 

"  In  paragraph  4,  (3  of  1796,)  respecting  the  selling  of  a  slave,  before  the  words 
1  shall  immediately,'  the  following  clause  is  inserted  : — '  except  at  the  request  of  the 
slave,  in  cases  of  mercy  and  humanity,  agreeably  to  the  judgment  of  a  committee  of 


48 

the  male  members  of  the  society,  appointed  by  the  preacher  who  has  charge  of  the 
circuit.' 

"  The  following  new  proviso  was  inserted  in  this  paragraph : — '  Provided  also,  that 
if  a  member  of  our  society  shall  buy  a  slave  with  a  certificate  of  future  emancipa- 
tion, the  terms  of  emancipation  shall,  notwithstanding,  be  subject  to  the  decision  of 
the  quarterly  meeting  conference.'  All  after  '  nevertheless  '  was  struck  out,  and  the 
following  substituted  : — '  The  members  of  our  societies  in  the  States  of  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Tennessee,  shall  be  exempted  from  the  operation 
of  the  above  rules.'  The  paragraphs  about  considering  the  subject  of  slavery  and 
petitions  to  legislatures,  (namely,  No.  4  of  1796,  and  No.  6  of  1800,)  were  struck  out, 
and  the  following  added  : — 

"'5.  Let  our  preachers,  from  time  to  time,  as  occasion  serves,  admonish  and  exhort 
all  slaves  to  render  due  respect  and  obedience  to  the  commands  and  interests  of 
their  respective  masters.' 

"  1808. — All  that  related  to  slaveholding  among  private  members  (see  2  and  3  of 
1796)  struck  out,  and  the  following  substituted  : — 

'"3.  The  General  Conference  authorizes  each  annual  conference  to  form  their  own 
regulations  relative  to  buying  and  selling  slaves.' 

"  Paragraph  5  of  1804  was  also  struck  out. 

"  1812. — Paragraph  3  of  1808  was  altered  so  as  to  read, — 

"  '"Whereas  the  laws  of  some  of  the  States  do  not  admit  of  emancipating  of  slaves, 
without  a  special  act  of  the  legislature ;  the  General  Conference  authorizes  each 
annual  conference  to  form  their  own  regulations  relative  to  buying  and  selling 
slaves.' 

"  1816. — Paragraph  1  (see  1796)  was  altered  so  as  to  read, — 

"  '  1.  We  declare  that  we^are  as  much  as  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of  slavery  ; 
therefore  no  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  here- 
after, where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipation,  and 
permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.' 

"  1820. — Paragraph  3,  (see  1812,)  leaving  it  to  the  annual  conferences  'to  form 
their  own  regulations  about  buying  and  selling  slaves,'  was  struck  out. 

"  1824. — The  following  paragraphs  added  : — 

"  '  3.  All  our  preachers  shall  prudently  enforce  upon  our  members  the  necessity  of 
teaching  their  slaves  to  read  the  word  of  God ;  and  to  allow  them  time  to  attend 
upon  the  public  worship  of  God  on  our  regular  days  of  divine  service. 

" '  4.  Our  coloured  preachers  and  official  members  shall  have  all  the  privileges 
which  are  usual  to  others  in  the  district  and  quarterly  conferences,  where  the  usages 
of  the  country  do  not  forbid  it.  And  the  presiding  elder  may  hold  for  them  a 
separate  district  conference,  where  the  number  of  coloured  local  preachers  will 
justify  it. 

" '  5.  The  annual  conferences  may  employ  coloured  preachers  to  travel  and 
preach  where  their  services  are  judged  necessary  ;  provided  that  no  one  shall  be  so 
employed  without  having  been  recommended  according  to  the  Form  of  Discipline,' 
—Pp.  274-279." 

We  now  come  down,  if  your  Honours  please,  to  the  journal  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1840,  page  56  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs,  and  we  approach  to  the  very  acts 
of  dissension.  We  read  these  parts  of  the  evidence  with  a  view  to  show  the  actual 
state  of  the  difficulty  in  which  the  society  found  itself  in  1844,  and  whether  there 
was  a  permanent  or  serious  difficulty,  or  not. 

"  MAY  2. — O.  Scott  of  the  New-England  Conference,  presented  a  petition  from 
persons  residing  in  New- York  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  On  the  presenting  of  this 
petition,  J.  Early  moved  the  appointment  of  a  standing  Committee  on  Slavery,  to 
whom  all  papers,  petitions,  and  memorials,  upon  that  subject,  shall  be  referred. 
Adopted.  Ordered  that  the  committee  consist  of  twenty-eight  members,  one  from 
each  annual  conference,  and  appointed  by  the  respective  delegations. 

"  FRIDAY,  MAY  8. — E.  Dorsey  presented  the  memorial  of  the  stewards  and  others 
of  Westmoreland  circuit,  Baltimore  Conference,  complaining  of  the  action  of  the 
Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  refusing  to  elect  to  ordination  local  preachers,  on 
the  single  ground  of  their  being  slaveholders. 


49 

"  The  memorial  was  read,  and  ineffectual  efforts  made  to  procure  other  reference. 
After  discussion  it  was,  on  motion,  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  nine  to  consider 
and  report  thereon." 

Your  Honours  will  permit  me  to  explain  that  the  Westmoreland  Circuit  was  in 
Virginia,  but  connected  with  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

"WEDNESDAY,  MAY  13. — On  motion  of  J.  A.  Collins,  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary,  of  1836,  in  relation  to  a  memorial  from  Westmoreland  and  Lancas- 
ter circuits,  Baltimore  Conference,  was  referred  to  the  committee  raised  on  the 
memorial  from  Westmoreland  circuit  to  this  Conference. 

"THURSDAY,  MAY  21. — N.  Bangs,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Slavery,  present- 
ed a  report,  which  was  read. 

"  O.  Scott  stated  that  the  minority  of  the  committee  had  a  report  which  they 
wished  to  present.  Moved  that  the  report  of  the  majority  be  laid  on  the  table  for 
the  present.  Carried. 

•'  It  was  then  moved  that  the  report  of  the  minority  be  read.  After  discussion,  it 
was  moved  to  lay  this  on  the  table.  Carried. 

"  On  motion,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Slavery  was  again  taken  up.  The 
first  resolution  accompanying  the  report  was  read. 

"  Moved  to  adjourn.     Lost. 

"  0.  Scott,  rising  to  speak,  and  intimating  that  he  would  probably  extend  his  re- 
marks beyond  fifteen  minutes,  it  was,  on  motion,  resolved  to  suspend  the  rule  re- 
stricting a  speaker  to  fifteen  minutes,  so  as  to  permit  brother  Scott  to  proceed  at  his 
own  discretion. 

"  Moved  to  adjourn.     Lost. 

"  After  brother  Scott  had  proceeded  some  time  with  his  remarks,  he  gave  way  for 
a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  prevailed  ;  and  Conference  adjourned,  to  meet  to-morrow 
morning,  at  half-past  eight  o'clock." 

THE  COURT, — Where  was  that  Conference  held  1 

MR.  LORD, — In  the  city  of  Baltimore.     It  commenced  on  the  1st  of  May,  1840. 
MR.  REVERDY  JOHNSON, — The  Conference  of  1844  was  held  in  this  city. 
MR.  LORD  continued  to  read  as  follows  : — 

•'  FRIDAY  MORNING,  MAY  22. — Conference  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the 
unfinished  business  of  yesterday,  it  being  the  first  resolution  accompanying  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  Slavery.  The  discussion  was  renewed. 

"  On  motion,  Conference  resolved,  that  when  it  adjourned,  it  adjourn  to  meet  this 
afternoon,  at  three  o'clock. 

•'  During  the  debate,  brother  Crowther  being  on  the  floor,  and  having  spoken  fifteen 
minutes,  a  motion  was  made  that  he  have  liberty  to  proceed  with,  and  conclude  his 
remarks.  For  this,  a  substitute  was  moved  in  these  words,  That  the  rule  restricting 
speaking  to  fifteen  minutes  be  suspended  during  the  discussion  of  the  subject  before 
the  Conference.  Lost. 

"  The  question  recurring  upon  the  original  motion,  it  was  withdrawn  by  the 
mover,  but  was  immediately  renewed  and  adopted." 

I  pass  on  to  page  67  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs  for  the  continuation  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  Conference  : — 

"  MAY  28. — W.  Capers,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Address  from  the 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Connexion,  made  a  report,  accompanied  with  letters  to  the 
British  and  Canada  Conferences,  which  were  read.  Moved  to  adopt  the  report  and 
letters."  (See  appendix,  Documents  B.  and  C.) 

"  O.  Scott  called  for  a  division  on  adopting  the  letter  to  the  British  Conference. 
H.  Slicer  moved  to  recommit  the  report.  Lost.  J.  T.  Mitchell  offered  the  following 
resolution,  which  was  adopted  : — '  Resolved,  That  the  committee  revise  the  letter 
to  the  British  Conference,  so  as  to  refer  to  our  literary  institutions,  and  to  the  inter- 
change of  representatives.' 

"  The  question  was  then  taken  on  adopting  the  report  of  the  committee. 

4 


50 

"  1.  On  the  letter  to  the  British  Weslcyan  Conference,  a  division  was  called  for  ; 
and  on  motion,  that  part  which  does  not  refer  to  slavery  was  adopted.  "  That  part 
relatincr  to  slavery  w;is  also  adopted  ;  one  hundred  and  fourteen  voting  in  the  affirma- 
iiid  eighteen  in  the  negative." 

]  now  propose  to  read  extracts  from  some  documents  which  in  these  proceedings 
have  been  referred  to ;  first,  that  which  begins  on  page  58  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs, 
and  next,  that  which  begins  on  page  64,  which  express  the  sentiments  of  the  Confer- 
ence at  that  period. 

MK.  JOHNSON,  JUN.,  read  the  following  extract : — 

"  Extract  from  Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 

Episcopal  Church. 

"  In  a  body  so  numerous  as  the  Methodist  connexion,  embracing  twenty-eight  an- 
nual conferences,  extended  over  these  United  States  and  Territories,  and  connected 
with  different  civil  and  domestic  institutions,  it  is  hardly  expected  that  all  should  see 
'  eye  to  eye'  relative  to  the  meaning  and  administration  of  the  Discipline  of  the 
Church,  or  the  fitness  and  expediency  of  measures  which  may  be  adopted  in  con- 
formity to  such  a  state  of  things. 

"  It  has  been  the  constant  aim  and  united  endeavour  of  your  general  superintend- 
ents to  preserve  uniformity  and  harmony  in  these  respects  ;  and,  as  far  as  practi- 
cable, prevent  conflicting  action  in  all  the  official  bodies  in  the  Church.  But 
although  we  record,  with  unfeigned  gratitude  to  the  God  of  all  grace  and  consolation, 
the  general  peace,  and  harmony,  and  prosperity  of  the  body  since  your  last  session,  it 
becomes  our  painful  duty  to  lay  before  you  some  exceptions  to  this  happy  and 
prosperous  condition. 

"  At  the  last  session  of  the  General  Conference  the  subject  of  slavery  and  its 
abolition  was  extensively  discussed,  and  vigorous  exertions  made  to  effect  new 
legislation  upon  it.  But  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  ground,  aided  by 
the  light  of  past,  experience,  it  was  the  solemn  conviction  of  the  Conference  that  the 
interests  of  religion  would  not  be  advanced  by  any  additional  enactments  in  regard 
to  it. 

"  In  your  Pastoral  Address  to  the  ministers  and  people  at  your  last  session,  with 
'.^eat  unanimity,  and,  as  we  believe,  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  ministers  of  the  peace- 
ful Gospel  of  Christ,  you  solemnly  advised  the  whole  body  to  abstain  from  all  abolition 
movements,  and  from  agitating  the  exciting  subject  in  the  Church.  This  advice  was 
in  perfect  agreement  with  the  individual  as  well  as  associated  views  of  your  superin- 
tendents. But,  had  we  differed  from  you  in  opinion,  in  consideration  of  the  age, 
wisdom,  experience,  and  official  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  we  should 
have  felt  ourselves  under  a  solemn  obligation  to  be  governed  by  your  counsel.  We 
have  endeavoured,  both  in  our  official  administration,  and  in  our  private  intercourse 
with  the  preachers  and  members,  to  inculcate  the  sound  policy  and  Christian  spirit 
of  your  Pastoral  Address.  And  it  affords  us  great  pleasure  to  be  able  to  assure  you, 
that  our  efforts  in  this  respect  have  been  very  generally  approved,  and  your  advice 
cordially  received  and  practically  observed  in  a  very  large  majority  of  the  annual  con- 
ferences, as  will  more  fully  appear  to  you  on  the  careful  examination  of  the  journals 
of  those  bodies  for  the  last  four  years.  But  we  regret  that  we  are  compelled  to  say, 
that  in  some  of  the  Northern  and  Eastern  conferences,  in  contravention  of  your 
Christian  and  pastoral  counsel,  and  of  your  best  efforts  to  carry  it  into  effect,  the 
subject  has  been  agitated  in  such  forms,  and  in  such  a  spirit,  as  to  disturb  the  peace 
of  the  Church.  This  unhappy  agitation  has  not  been  confined  to  the  annual  confer- 
ences, but  has  been  introduced  into  quarterly  conferences,  and  made  the  absorbing 
business  of  self-created  bodies  in  the  bosom  of  our  beloved  Zion.  The  professed 
object  of  all  these  operations  is  to  free  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  the 
'  great  moral  evil  of  slavery,'  and  to  secure  to  the  enslaved  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  free  citizens  of  these  United  States.  How  far  the  measures  adopted,  and  the 
manner  of  applying  those  measures,  are  calculated  to  accomplish  such  an  issue,  even 
if  it  could  be  effected  by  any  action  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  your  united  wisdom  will 
enable  you  to  judge. 

"  We  cannot,  however,  but  regard  it  as  of  unhappy  tendency  that  either  individual 
members  or  official  bodies  in  the  Church,  should  employ  terms  and  pass  resolutions 

4* 


51 

of  censure  and  condemnation  on  their  brethren,  and  on  public  officers  and  official 
bodies,  over  whose  actions  they  have  no  legitimate  jurisdiction.  It  requires  no  very 
extensive  knowledge  of  human  nature  to  be  convinced  that  if  we  would  convert  our 
fellow-men  from  the  error  of  their  ways,  we  must  address  them,  not  in  terms  of 
crimination  and  reproach,  but  in  the  milder  language  of  respect,  persuasion  and 
kindness. 

"  It  is  justly  due  to  a  number  of  the  annual  conferences  in  which  a  majority,  or  a 
very  respectable  minority,  of  the  members  are  professedly  abolitionists,  to  say  that 
they  occupy  a  very  different  ground,  and  pursue  a  very  different  course  from  those 
of  their  brethren  who  have  adopted  ultra  principles  and  measures  in  this  unfortunate, 
and,  we  think,  unprofitable  controversy.  The  result  of  action  had  in  such  confer- 
ences on  the  resolution  of  the  New-England  Conference,  recommending  a  very 
important  change  in  our  general  rule  on  slavery,  is  satisfactory  proof  of  this  fact,  and 
affords  us  strong  and  increasing  confidence  that  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church 
are  not  to  be  materially  affected  by  this  exciting  subject.  Many  of  the  preachers 
who  were  favourably  disposed  to  the  cause  of  abolition,  when  they  saw  the  extent 
to  which  it  was  designed  to  carry  these  measures,  and  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
their  prosecution,  came  to  a  pause,  reflected,  and  declined  their  co-operation.  They 
clearly  perceived  that  the  success  of  the  measures  would  result  in  the  division  of  the 
Church ;  and  for  such  an  event  they  were  not  prepared.  They  have  no  disposition 
to  criminate  their  brethren  in  the  South,  who  are  unavoidably  connected  with  the 
institution  of  slavery,  or  to  separate  from  them  on  that  account.  It  is  believed  that 
men  of  ardent  temperament,  whose  zeal  may  have  been  somewhat  in  advance  of 
their  knowledge  and  discretion,  have  made  such  advances  in  the  abolition  enterprise 
as  to  produce  a  reaction.  A  few  preachers  and  members,  disappointed  in  their  ex- 
pectations, and  despairing  of  the  success  of  their  cause  in  the  Methodist  Church, 
have  withdrawn  from  our  fellowship,  and  connected  themselves  with  associations 
more  congenial  with  their  views  and  feelings  ;  and  others,  in  similar  circumstances, 
may  probably  follow  their  example.  But  we  rejoice  in  believing  that  these  seces- 
sions will  be  very  limited,  and  that  the  great  body  of  Methodists  in  these  States  will 
continue  as  they  have  been — one  and  inseparable.  The  uniformity  and  stability  of 
our  course  should  be  such  as  to  let  all  candid  and  thinking  men  see,  that  the  cause 
of  secessions  from  us  is  not  a  change  of  our  doctrine  or  moral  discipline — no  imposi- 
tion of  new  terms  of  communion — no  violation  of  covenant  engagements  on  the  part 
of  the  Church.  It  is  a  matter  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  those  who  have  de- 
parted from  us  do  not  pretend  that  any  material  change  in  our  system,  with  respect 
either  to  doctrine,  discipline,  or  government,  has  taken  place  since  they  voluntarily 
united  themselves  with  us.  And  it  is  ardently  to  be  desired  that  no  such  innovation 
may  be  effected,  as  to  furnish  any  just  ground  for  such  a  pretension. 

"  The  experience  of  more  than  half  a  century,  since  the  organization  of  our  eccle- 
siastical body,  will  afford  us  many  important  lights  and  landmarks,  pointing  out  what 
is  the  safest  and  most  prudent  policy  to  be  pursued  in  our  onward  course  as  regards 
African  slavery  in  these  States,  and  especially  in  our  own  religious  community. 
This  very  interesting  period  of  our  history  is  distinguished  by  several  characteristic 
features  having  a  special  claim  to  our  consideration  at  the  present  time,  particularly 
in  view  of  the  unusual  excitement  which  now  prevails  on  the  subject,  not  only  in  the 
different  Christian  Churches,  but  also  in  the  civil  body.  And,  first :  our  general  rule 
on  slavery,  which  forms  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  has  stood  from  the 
beginning  unchanged,  as  testamentary  of  our  sentiments  on  the  principle  of  slavery 
and  the  slave  trade.  And  in  this  we  differ  in  no  respect  from  the  sentiments  of  our 
venerable  founder,  or  from  those  of  the  wisest  and  most  distinguished  statesmen  and 
civilians  of  our  own  and  other  enlightened  and  Christian  countries.  Secondly  :  in  all 
the  enactments  of  the  Church  relating  to  slavery,  a  due  and  respectful  regard  has 
been  had  to  the  laws  of  the  States,  never  requiring  emancipation  in  contravention  of 
the  civil  authority,  or  where  the  laws  of  the  States  would  not  allow  the  liberated 
slave  to  enjoy  his  freedom.  Thirdly  :  the  simply  holding  or  owning  slaves,  without 
regard  to  circumstances,  has  at  no  period  of  the  existence  of  the  Church  subjected 
the  master  to  excommunication.  Fourthly :  rules  have  been  made  from  time  to 
time,  regulating  the  sale,  and  purchase,  and  holding  of  slaves,  with  reference  to  the 
different  laws  of  the  States  where  slavery  is  tolerated  ;  which,  upon  the  experience 
of  the  great  difficulties  of  administering  them,  and  the  unhappy  consequences  both  to 
masters  and  servants,  have  been  as  often  changed  or  repealed.  These  important 


52 

facts,  which  form  prominent  features  of  our  past  history  as  a  Church,  may  very  pro- 
perly lead  us  to  inquire  for  that  course  of  action  in  future,  which  may  be  best  calcu- 
lated to  preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  whole  body,  promote  the  greatest  hap- 
piness of  the  slave  population,  and  advance  generally,  in  the  slave-holding  communitv 
of  our  country,  the  humane  and  hallowing  influence  of  our  holy  religion.  AVe  cannot 
withhold  from  you,  at  this  eventful  period,  the  solemn  conviction  of  our  minds,  that 
no  new  ecclesiastical  legislation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  at  this  time,  will  have  a 
tendency  to  accomplish  these  most  desirable  objects.  And  we  are  fully  persuaded 
that,  as  a  body  of  Christian  ministers,  we  shall  accomplish  the  greatest  good  by  direct- 
in  '„'  our  individual  and  united  efforts,  in  the  spirit  of  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity, 
to  bring  both  master  and  servant  under  the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  principles  of 
that  Gospel  which  teaches  the  duties  of  every  relation,  and  enforces  the  faithful  dis- 
charge of  them  by  the  strongest  conceivable  motives.  Do  we  aim  at  the  amelioration 
of  the  condition  of  the  slave  1  How  can  we  so  effectually  accomplish  this,  in  our 
calling  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  as  by  employing  our  whole  influence  to 
bring  both  him  and  his  master  to  a  saving  knowledge  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  a 
practical  observance  of  those  relative  duties  so  clearly  prescribed  in  the  writings  of 
the  inspired  apostles  ?  Permit  us  to  add,  that,  although  we  enter  not  into  the  poli- 
tical contentions  of  the  day,  neither  interfere  with  civil  legislation,  nor  with  the 
administration  of  the  laws,  we  cannot  but  feel  a  deep  interest  in  whatever  affects  the 
peace,  prosperity,  and  happiness  of  our  beloved  country.  The  union  of  these  States, 
the  perpetuity  of  the  bonds  of  our  national  confederation,  the  reciprocal  confidence 
of  the  different  members  of  the  great  civil  compact, — in  a  word,  the  icdl-being  of  the 
community  of  which  we  are  members,  should  never  cease  to  lie  near  our  hearts,  and 
for  which  we  should  offer  up  our  sincere  and  most  ardent  prayers  to  the  Almighty 
Ruler  of  the  universe.  But  can  we,  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  and  servants  of  a 
Master  '  whose  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world,'  promote  these  important  objects  in 
any  way  so  truly  and  permanently  as  by  pursuing  the  course  just  pointed  out  1  Can 
we,  at  this  eventful  crisis,  render  a  better  service  to  our  country,  than  by  laying  aside 
all  interference  with  relations  authorized  and  established  by  the  civil  laws,  and  ap- 
plying ourselves  wholly  and  faithfully  to  what  specially  appertains  to  our  '  high  and 
holy  calling  ;'  to  teach  and  enforce  the  moral  obligations  of  the  Gospel,  in  application 
to  all  the  duties  growing  out  of  the  different  relations  in  society  1  By  a  diligent 
devotion  to  this  evangelical  employment,  with  an  humble  and  steadfast  reliance  upon 
the  aid  of  Divine  influence,  the  number  of  'believing  masters'  and  servants  may  be 
constantly  increased,  the  kindest  sentiments  and  affections  cultivated,  domestic  bur- 
dens lightened,  mutual  confidence  cherished,  and  the  peace  and  happiness  of  society 
be  promoted.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  if  past  history  affords  us  any  correct  rules 
of  judgment,  there  is  much  cause  to  fear  that  the  influence  of  our  sacred  office,  if 
employed  in  interference  with  the  relation  itself,  and  consequently  with  the  civil 
institutions  of  the  country,  will  rather  tend  to  prevent  than  to  accomplish  these  de- 
sirable ends." 

MR.  LORD, — If  your  Honours  please,  the  extract  from  the  address  of  the  bishops, 
which  has  been  read,  is  neither  dated  nor  signed  ;  but  for  the  date  and  signatures, 
I  refer  you  to  the  printed  Minutes,  or  Journal  of  the  General  Conference,  of  1840, 
page  151,  and  you  will  find  that  it  was  signed  by  R.  R.  Roberts,  Joshua  Soule,  E. 
Hedding,  James  0.  Andrew,  B.  "Waugh,  and  Thomas  A.  Morris,  being  all  the  bishops 
of  the  Church  at  that  time.  It  bears  date,  Baltimore,  May  4,  1840. 

The  hour  of  three  o'clock,  the  usual  hour  of  adjournment,  having  arrived,  the  Court 
was  adjourned  until  to-morrow,  at  ten  o'clock,  A.  M. 

SECOND  DAY.— TUESDAT,  May  20,  1851. 

MR.  LORD, — Before  the  adjournment  yesterday,  if  your  Honours  please,  we  read 
an  extract  from  the  Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  held  in  Baltimore  in  1840.  I  now  propose  to  read  an 
extract  from  the  Address  of  the  British  Conference  to  the  bishops  and  members  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America, 'and  an  extract  from  an  Address  of  the  General  Conference  to  the  British 


53 

Conference.    I  refer  your  Honours  to  page  67  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs,  for  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  upon  these  documents. 

"  From  Address  of  tJie  British  Conference. 

"  '  But  while  we  freely  indulge  in  sentiments  such  as  these,  we  cannot  forget  that  on 
one  subject  especially — the  subject  of  American  slavery — you,  our  beloved  brethren, 
arc  placed  in  circumstances  of  painful  trial  and  perplexity.  We  enter,  with  brother- 
ly sympathy,  into  the  peculiar  situation  which  you  are  now  called  to  occupy.  But 
on  this  question,  we  beg  to  refer  you  to  what  occurs  in  our  Address  to  you  from  the 
conference  of  1836,  a  proper  copy  of  which  will  be  handed  to  you  by  our  representa- 
tive ;  as  also  to  the  contents  of  our  preceding  letter  of  1835.  To  the  principles 
which  we  have  affectionately  but  honestly  declared  in  these  two  documents  we  still 
adhere,  with  a  full  conviction  of  their  Christian  truth  and  justice. 

"  '  The  time  which  has  elapsed,  and  the  events  which  have  taken  place,  since  the 
preparation  of  the  above-mentioned  papers,  serve  only  to  confirm  us  yet  more  in  our 
views  of  the  moral  evil  of  slavery.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  advocate  violent  and  ill-con- 
sidered measures.  We  are,  however,  strongly  and  unequivocally  of  opinion  that  it 
is,  at  this  time,  the  paramount  Christian  duty  of  the  ministers  of  our  most  merciful 
Lord  in  your  country  to  maintain  the  principle  of  opposition  to  slavery  with  earnest 
zeal  and  unflinching  firmness.  May  we  not  also  be  allowed,  with  the  heart-felt  soli- 
citude of  fraternal  love,  to  entreat  that  you  will  not  omit  or  qualify  the  noble  testi- 
mony which  we  have  extracted,  in  a  note  to  our  Address,  from  your  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, but  that  you  will  continue  to  insert  it  there  in  its  primitive  and  unimpaired 
integrity !' 

"  From  Address  of  the  General  Conference. 

•••We  have  considered,  with  affectionate  respect  and  confidence,  your  brotherly 
suggestions  concerning  slavery,  and  most  cheerfully  return  an  unreserved  answer  to 
them.  And  we  do  so  the  rather,  brethren,  because  of  the  numerous  prejudicial  state- 
ments which  have  been  put  forth  in  certain  quarters  to  the  wounding  of  the  Church. 
We  assure  you  then,  brethren,  that  we  have  adopted  no  new  principle  or  rule  of  dis- 
cipline respecting  slavery  since  the  time  of  our  apostolic  Asbury ;  neither  do  we  mean 
to  adopt  any.  In  our  general  rules,  (called  the  '  General  Rules  of  the  United  So- 
cieties,' and  which  are  of  constitutional  authority  in  our  Church,)  '  the  buying  and 
selling  of  men,  women,  and  children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them,'1  is  expressly 
prohibited ;  and  in  the  same  words,  substantially,  which  have  been  used  for  the  rule 
since  -1792.  And  the  extract  of  part  ii,  section  10,  of  our  Book  of  Discipline,  which 
you  quote  with  approbation,  and  denominate  '  a  noble  testimony,'  is  still  of  force  to 
ihe  same  extent  that  it  has  been  for  many  years ;  nor  do  we  entertain  any  purpose  to 
omit  or  qualify  this  section,  or  any  part  thereof.  For  while  we  should  regard  it  a 
sore  evil  to  divert  Methodism  from  her  proper  work  of  '  spreading  Scripture  holiness 
occr  these  lands,''  to  questions  of  temporal  import,  involving  the  rights  of  Caesar,  yet 
are  we  not  the  less  minded  on  that  account  to  promote  and  set  forward  all  humane 
and  generous  actions,  or  to  prevent,  to  the  utmost  of  our  power,  such  as  are  evil  and 
unchristian.  It  is  our  first  desire,  after  piety  toward  God,  to  be  '  merciful  after  our 
power ;  as  we  have  opportunity,  doing  good  of  every  possible  sort,  and  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, to  all  men' — 'to  their  bodies,'  but  especially,  and  above  all,  '  to  their  souls.' 

•' '  Of  these  United  States,  (to  the  government  and  laws  of  which,  '  according  to 
the  division  of  power  made  to  them  by  the  constitution  of  the  Union,  and  the  consti- 
tutions of  the  several  States,'  we  owe,  and  delight  to  render,  a  sincere  and  patriotic 
loyalty,)  there  are  several  which  do  not  allow  of  slavery.  There  are  others  in  which 
it  is  allowed,  and  there  are  slaves ;  but  the  tendency  of  the  laws,  and  the  minds  of  the 
majority  of  the  people,  are  in  favour  of  emancipation.  But  there  are  others  in  which 
slavery  exists  so  universally,  and  is  so  closely  interwoven  with  their  civil  institutions, 
that  both  do  the  laws  disallow  of  emancipation,  and  the  great  body  of  the  people  (the 
source  of  laws  with  us)  hold  it  to  be  treasonable  to  set  forth  anything,  by  word  or 
deed,  tending  that  way.  Each  one  of  all  these  States  is  independent  of  the  rest,  and 
sovereign,  with  respect  to  its  internal  government,  (as  much  so  as  if  there  existed 
no  confederation  among  them  for  ends  of  common  interest,)  and  therefore  it  is  impos- 
sible to  frame  a  rule  on  slavery  proper  for  our  people  in  all  the  States  alike.  But 
our  Church  is  extended  through  all  the  States,  and  as  it  would  be  wrong  and  un- 
scriptural  to  enact  a  rule  of  discipline  in  opposition  to  the  constitution  and  laws  of 


54 

the  State  on  this  subject,  so  also  would  it  not  be  equitable  or  Scriptural  to  confound 
the  positions  of  our  ministers  and  people  (so  different  as  they  are  in  different  .States) 
with  respect  to  the  moral  question  which  slavery  involves. 

"'Under  the  administration  of  the  venerated  Dr.  Coke,  this  plain  distinction  was 
once  overlooked,  and  it  was  attempted  to  urge  emancipation  in  all  the  States;  but 
the  attempt  proved  almost  ruinous,  and  was  soon  abandoned  by  the  doctor  himself. 
While,  therefore,  the  Church  has  encouraged  emancipation  in  those  States  where  the 
laws  permit  it  and  allowed  the  freed-man  to  enjoy  freedom,  we  have  refrained,  for 
conscience'  sake,  from  all  intermeddling  with  the  subject  in  those  other  States  where 
the  laws  make  it  criminal.  And  such  a  course  we  think  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  indicated  by  St.  Paul's  inspired  instruction  to  servants  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  chap,  vii,  ver.  20,  21.  For  if  servants  were  not  to  care  for  their  servi- 
tude when  they  might  not  be  free,  though  if  they  might  be  free  they  should  use  it 
rather;  so,  neither  should  masters  be  condemned  for  not  setting  them  free  when  they 
might  not  do  so,  though  if  they  might  they  should  do  so  rather.  The  question  of  the 
evil  of  slavery,  abstractedly  considered,  you  will  readily  perceive,  brethren,  is  a  very 
different  matter  from  a  principle  or  rule  of  Church  discipline  to  be  executed  contrary 
to,  and  in  defiance  of,  the  law  of  the  land.  Methodism  has  always  been  (except  per- 
haps in  the  single  instance  above)  eminently  loyal  and  promotive  of  good  order ;  and 
so  we  desire  it  may  ever  continue  to  be,  both  in  Europe  and  America.  With  rhi* 
sentiment  we  conclude  the  subject,  adding  only  the  corroborating  language  of  your 
noble  Missionary  Society,  by  the  revered  and  lamented  Watson,  in  their  instruction-- 
to  missionaries,  published  in  the  Report  of  1833,  as  follows  : — 

"  ' "  As  in  the  colonies  in  which  you  are  called  to  labour  a  great  proportion  of  the 
inhabitants  are  in  a  state  of  slavery,  the  committee  most  strongly  call  to  your  re- 
membrance what  was  so  fully  stated  to  you  when  you  were  accepted  as  a  missionary 
to  the  West  Indies,  that  your  only  business  is  to  promote  the  moral  and  religious  im- 
provement of  the  slaves  to  whom  you  may  have  access,  without,  in  the  least  degree, 
in  public  or  private,  interfering  with  their  civil  condition.'' ' 

I  will  now  continue  to  read  from  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  of 
1840 — page  68,  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs — the  report  of  the  Committee  on  the  West- 
moreland Petition,  which  was  a  case  in  which  they  had  rejected  a  local  preacher  from 
ordination  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  slave-holder. 

"  WEDNESDAY,  JUNE  3. — H  B.  Bascom,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Peti- 
tion from  Westmoreland,  Va.,  presented  a  report,  which  was  read  and  adopted* 

"  Report  on  the  Westmoreland  Petition. 

"  '  The  committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  memorial  and  appeal  of  some  fifteen 
official  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Westmoreland  circuit. 
Baltimore  Conference,  on  the  subject  of  alleged  withholdment  of  right  from  a  por- 
tion of  the  local  ministry  within  the  limits  of  that  conference,  and  to  whom  was 
likewise  referred  the  report  of  the  judiciary  committee  upon  a  similar  remonstrance 
from  the  same  division  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  signed  by  about  thirty  official 
members  of  the  Church,  and  addressed  to  the  General  Conference  in  1836,  after 
giving  to  the  subject  the  attention  its  obvious  importance  demands,  beg  leave  t-> 
report  the  following  as  the  result  of  their  deliberations  : — 

"  '  The  particular  portion,  or  rather  general  section  of  country  in  which  these  remon- 
strances have  their  origin,  although  belonging  to  the  Baltimore  Conference,  is  found 
within  the  limits  of  the  state  of  Virginia  ;  and  the  memorialists  represent  in  strong 
but  respectful  terms,  that  local  preachers  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  but  residing  in  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia,  have,  in  considerable 
numbers,  and  for  a  succession  of  years,  been  rejected  as  applicants  for  deacons'  and 
elders'  orders  in  the  ministry,  solely  on  the  ground  of  their  being  slaveholders  or  the 
owners  of  slaves.  In  the  memorials  referred  to,  it  is  distinctly  stated,  that  election 
and  ordination  have  been  withheld  from  the  applicants  in  question,  on  no  other 
ground  or  pretence,  than  that  of  their  being  the  owners  of  slave  property  ;  and  it  is 
further  argued,  that  the  Baltimore  Conference  avows  this  to  be  the  only  reason  of 
the  course  they  pursue,  and  which  is  complained  of  by  the  petitioners.  The  appel- 
lants allege  further,  that  the  laws  of  Virginia  relating  to  slavery,  forbid  einanc:- 
pation,  except  under  restrictions,  and  subject  to  contingencies,  amounting,  to  all 


55 

intents  and  purposes,  to  a  prohibition  ;  and  that  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  having 
provided  for  the  ordination  of  ministers  thus  circumstanced,  the  course  pursued  by 
the  Baltimore  Conference  operates  as  an  abridgment  of  right,  and,  therefore,  fur- 
nishes just  ground  of  complaint.  The  memorialists  regard  themselves  as  clearly 
entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  well-known  provisional  exception  to  the  general 
rule  on  this  subject,  found  in  the  Discipline  ;  and  assume  with  confidence,  and 
argue  with  firmness  and  ability,  that  no  other  objection  being  found  to  the  character 
of  candidates  for  ordination,  it  is  a  departure  from  the  plain  intentment  of  the  law 
in  the  case,  and  a  violation  of  not  less  express  compact  than  of  social  justice,  to 
withhold  ordination  for  reasons  which  the  provisions  of  the  law  plainly  declare  arc 
not  to  be  considered  as  a  forfeiture  of  right.  It  is  set  forth  in  the  argument  of  the 
appellants,  that  attaching  themselves  to  the  Church  as  citizens  of  Virginia,  where, 
in  the  obvious  sense  of  the  Discipline,  emancipation  is  impracticable,  the  holding  ot 
slaves,  or  failure  to  emancipate  them,  cannot  plead  in  bar  to  the  right  of  ordination, 
as  is  the  case  in  States  where  emancipation,  as  defined  and  qualified  by  the  rule  in 
the  case,  is  found  to  be  practicable.  In  the  latter  case,  the  question  is  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  inasmuch  as  the  holding  or  not  holding  of  property  of 
this  kind  depends,  not  upon  the  constitution  and  regulation  of  civil  property,  but 
upon  the  will  and  purpose  of  individuals.  Under  such  circumstances  the  conduct  in 
question  is  voluntary,  and  in  every  final  sense  the  result  of  choice.  In  the  former, 
however,  where  emancipation  is  resisted  by  the  prohibition  of  law,  it  may  be  other- 
wise ;  and  in  many  instances  is  known  to  be,  resulting  entirely  from  the  involuntary- 
relations  and  circumstances  of  individuals  connected  with  the  very  structures  of 
civil  polity,  and  the  force  and  array  of  public  opinion  and  popular  interest.  The 
memorialists  advert  to  the  fact,  that  we  have  in  the  Discipline  two  distinct  classes 
of  legislative  provisions  in  relation  to  slavery — the  one  applying  to  owners  of  slaves 
where  emancipation  is  practicable,  consistently  with  the  interests  of  master  and 
slaves  ;  and  the  other  where  it  is  impracticable  without  endangering  such  safety,  and 
these  interests  on  the  part  of  both.  With  the  former,  known  as  the  general  rule  on 
this  subject,  the  petitioners  do  not  interfere  in  any  way,  and  are  content  simply  to 
place  themselves  under  the  protection  of  the  latter,  as  contracting  parties  with  the 
Church  ;  and  the  ground  of  complaint  is,  that  the  Church  has  failed  to  redeem  the 
pledge  of  its  own  laws,  by  refusing  or  failing  to  promote  to  office  ministers,  in 
whose  case  no  disability  attaches  on  the  ground  of  slavery,  because  the  dis- 
ability attaching  in  other  cases  is  here  removed  by  special  provision  of  law. 
and  so  far  leaves  the  right  to  ordination  clear  and  undoubted,  and  hence  the 
complaint  against  the  Baltimore  Conference.  In  further  prosecution  of  the  duty 
assigned  them,  your  committee  have  carefully  examined  the  law,  and  inquired  into 
the  system  of  slavery  as  it  exists  in  Virginia,  and  find  the  representation  of  the 
memorialists  essentially  correct.  The  conditions  with  which  emancipation  is  bur- 
dened in  that  commonwealth,  preclude  the  practicability  of  giving  freedom  to  slaves 
as  contemplated  in  the  Discipline,  except  in  extremely  rare  instances — say  one  in  a 
thousand,  and  possibly  not  more  than  one  in  five  thousand.  The  exception  in  the 
Discipline  is,  therefore,  strictly  applicable  to  all  the  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  holding  slaves  in  Virginia,  and  they  appear  clearly 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  rule  made  and  provided  in  such  cases. 

•' '  As  emancipation  under  such  circumstances  is  not  a  requirement  of  Discipline,  if 
cannot  be  made  a  condition  of  eligibility  to  office.  An  appeal  to  the  policy  and 
practice  of  the  Church  for  fifty  years  past,  will  show  incontestably,  that,  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  convictions  of  the  Church  with  regard  to  this  great  evil — 
the  nature  and  tendency  of  the  system  of  slavery — it  has  never  insisted  upon  emanci- 
pation in  contravention  of  civil  authority ;  and  it,  therefore,  appears  to  be  a  well- 
settled  and  long-established  principle  in  the  policy  of  the  Church,  that  no  ecclesias- 
tical disabilities  are  intended  to  ensue,  either  to  the  ministers  or  members  of  the 
Church  in  those  States  where  the  civil  authority  forbids  emancipation.  The  general 
rule,  therefore,  distinctly  and  invariably  requiring  emancipation  as  the  ground  oi 
right  and  the  condition  of  claim  to  ordination  where  the  laws  of  the  several  States 
admit  of  emancipation  and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  and  which, 
in  the  judgment  of  your  committee,  should  always  be  carried  into  effect  with 
unyielding  firmness,  does  not  apply  to  your  memorialists,  and  cannot,  by  any  fair 
construction  of  law,  affect  their  rights. 

"  '  On  the  other  hand,  your  committee  have  given  the  most  careful  consideration  to 


56 

the  position  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  complained  of  by  the  appellants.  The 
journals  of  the  several  sessions  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  for  a  series  of  years, 
have  been  carefully  examined,  and  found  to  be  silent  on  the  subject  of  the  rejections 
in  question,  except  the  single  statement,  that  A,  B,  and  C,  from  time  to  time, 
applied  for  admission  or  orders,  and  were  rejected.  We  find  no  rule  or  reason  of 
action,  no  evidence  of  preconcertion,  no  grounds  or  reasons  of  rejection,  stated  in 
any  form,  directly  or  indirectly.  Nothing  of  this  kind  is  avowed  in,  or  found  upon 
the  face  of  the  journals  of  that  body.  The  charge  of  particular  motives,  it  occurs 
to  your  committee,  cannot  be  sustained  in  the  instance  of  a  deliberative  body,  say 
the  Baltimore  Conference,  unless  it  appears  in  evidence  that  the  motives  have  been 
avowed  by  a  majority  of  the  conference  ;  and  it  is  not  in  proof  that  the  conference 
has  ever  had  an  action  to  this  effect,  whatever  may  have  been  the  declaration  of 
individuals  sustaining  the  charge  of  the  appellants.  The  fact  charged,  without 
reference  to  motives,  that  there  had  been  a  long  list  of  rejections,  both  asiregards 
admission  into  the  travelling  connexion  and  ordination,  until  the  exception  seems  to 
be  made  a  general  rule,  is  undoubtedly  true,  and  it  is  not  denied  by  the  defendants. 
The  evidence,  however,  in  relation  to  specific  reasons  and  motives,  is  defective,  and 
does  not  appear  to  sustain  the  charge  of  a  contravention  of  right  by  any  direct  ac- 
credited action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  had  in  the  premises. 

" '  That  this  view  of  the  subject  presents  a  serious  difficulty,  is  felt  by  your  com- 
mittee, and  must  be  so  by  all.  The  rule  applicable  in  this  case  allows  an  annual 
conference  to  elect  under  the  circumstances  ;  but  does  not,  and,  from  the  very 
nature  and  ubiquity  of  the  case,  cannot  require  it.  Among  the  unquestioned  con- 
stitutional rights  of  our  annual  conferences,  is  that  of  acting  freely,  without  any 
compulsory  direction,  in  the  exercise  of  individual  franchise.  Election  here  is 
plainly  an  assertion  of  personal  right  on  the  part  of  the  different  members  composing 
the  body,  with  regard  to  which,  the  claim  to  question  or  challenge  motives  does  not 
belong  even  to  the  General  Conference,  unless  the  result  has  turned  upon  avowed 
considerations  unknown  to  the  law  and  rule  in  the  case.  The  journal  of  the  con- 
ference is  the  only  part  of  its  history  of  which  this  body  has  cognizance  ;  and  to 
extend  such  cognizance  to  the  reasons  and  motives  of  individual  members  of  con- 
ferences not  declared  to  be  the  ground  of  action  by  a  majority,  would  be  to  establish 
a  rule  at  once  subversive  of  the  rights  and  independence  of  annual  conferences.  In 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  an  annual  conference  must  possess  the  right  of  free  and 
uncontrolled  determination,  not  only  in  the  choice  of  its  members,  but  in  all  its 
••lections,  and,  keeping  within  the  limits  and  restrictions  of  its  charter  as  found  in  the 
Discipline,  can  only  be  controlled  in  the  exercise  of  such  rights  by  moral  and  relative 
i"  --nsiderations  connected  with  the  intelligence  and  interests  of  the  body. 

"  '  The  memorialists  prayed  the  last  General  Conference,  and  they  again  ask  this, 
to  interfere  authoritatively,  by  change  or  construction  of  rule,  so  as  to  afford  re- 
lief; and  in  failure  to  do  so,  in  the  memorial  of  1836,  they  ask  to  be  set  off  to 
the  Virginia  Conference  as  the  only  remaining  remedy.  In  their  present  petition 
they  are  silent  on  the  subject  of  a  transfer  to  Virginia.  Under  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  and  taking  into  the  account  the  probabilities  of  future  action 
in  the  premises,  your  committee  cannot  but  regard  this  as  the  only  conclusive 
remedy.  But  how  far  this  may  be  considered  as  relatively  practicable,  or  whether 
advisable,  in  view  of  all  the  interests  involved,  the  committee  have  no  means  of 
determining,  and  therefore  leave  it  to  the  judgment  of  those  who  have.  That  the 
petitioners,  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline,  whether  said  pro- 
visions be  right  or  wrong,  are  entitled  to  remedy,  your  committee  cannot  for  a 
moment  doubt,  inasmuch  as  they  are  labouring,  and  have  been  for  years,  under 
practical  disabilities  actually  provided  against  by  the  Discipline  of  the  Church.  The 
alleged  grievance  is  by  the  petitioners  themselves  regarded  as  one  of  administration, 
not  of  law.  No  change  of  legislation  is  asked  for,  unless  this  body  prefer  it ;  and 
it  does  not  appear  to  your  committee  to  be  called  for  by  any  view  of  the  subject 
they  have  been  able  to  take. 

" '  Your  committee  are  unwilling  to  close  this  brief  view  of  the  subject,  without 
anxiously  suggesting  that,  as  it  is  one  of  the  utmost  importance  and  intense  delicacy 
in  its  application  and  bearings  throughout  our  entire  country,  involving  in  greater  or 
less  degree  the  hopes  and  fears,  the  anxieties  and  interests  of  millions,  it  must  be 
expected  that  great  variety  of  opinions  and  diversity  of  conviction  and  feeling  will  be 
found  to  exist  in  relation  to  it,  and  most  urgently  call  for  the  exercise  of  mutual  for- 


57 

bearance  and  reciprocal  good-will  on  the  part  of  all  concerned.  May  not  the  principles 
and  causes  giving  birth  and  perpetuity  to  great  moral  and  political  systems  or  institu- 
tions be  regarded  as  evil,  even  essentially  evil,  in  every  primary  aspect  of  the  subject, 
without  the  implication  of  moral  obliquity  on  the  part  of  those  involuntarily  connected 
with  such  systems  and  institutions,  and  providentially  involved  in  their  operation  and 
consequences  1  May  not  a  system  of  this  kind  be  jealously  regarded  as  in  itself  more 
or  less  inconsistent  with  natural  right  and  moral  rectitude,  without  the  imputation  of 
guilt  and  derelict  motive,  in  the  instance  of  those  who,  without  any  choice  or  pur- 
pose of  their  own,  are  necessarily  subjected  to  its  influence  and  sway  1 

"  '  Can  it  be  considered  as  just  or  reasonable  to  hold  individuals  responsible  for  tho 
destiny  of  circumstances  over  which  they  have  no  control  1  Thus  conditioned  in  the 
organic  arrangements  and  distributions  of  society,  is  there  any  necessary  connexion 
between  the  moral  character  of  the  individual  and  that  of  the  system  1  In  this  way 
the  modifying  influence  of  unavoidable  agencies  or  circumstances  in  the  formation 
of  character  is  a  well-known  principle,  and  one  of  universal  recognition  in  law,  morals, 
and  religion,  and  upon  which  all  administration  of  law,  not  unjust  and  oppressive, 
must  proceed.  And  your  committee  know  no  reason  why  the  rule  is  inapplicable,  or 
should  not  obtain,  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  this  report.  In  conclusion,  your  com- 
mittee would  express  the  deliberate  opinion  that,  while  the  general  rule  on  the  subject 
of  slavery,  relating  to  those  States  only  whose  laws  admit  of  emancipation  and  permit 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  should  be  firmly  and  constantly  enforced,  the  excep- 
tion to  the  general  rule,  applying  to  those  States  where  emancipation,  as  defined 
above,  is  not  practicable,  should  be  recognised  and  protected  with  equal  firmness 
and  impartiality.  The  committee  respectfully  suggest  to  the  Conference  the  pro- 
priety of  adopting  the  following  resolution  : — 

"  '  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  That  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  general  rule  of  the  Church 
on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of  slave 
property,  in  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation  and 
permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the  elec- 
tion or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot  therefore  be  considered  as  operating 
any  forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination.'  " 

I  beg  your  Honours'  attention  to  the  phrase,  "  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the 
election  or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  min- 
istry of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

I  no%y  proceed  to  quote  from  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  upon 
the  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  which  arose  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  which,  I  believe, 
has  been  called  the  "  Breakwater  Conference."  This  General  Conference  commenced 
its  sittings  in  the  city  of  New- York,  on  Wednesday,  May  1,  1844,  on  which  day 
Bishops  Soule,  Hedding,  Andrew,  Waugh,  and  Morris,  were  present.  From  the 
Minutes  it  appears  that  this  Conference  was  flooded  with  petitions  upon  the  subject 
of  slavery  ;  and  on  the  4th  of  May  this  precise  and  particular  case  came  up. — (P.  75, 
first  of  the  Proofs.) 

"  SATURDAY,  MAY  4,  1844. — J.  A.  Gere  presented  the  appeal  of  Francis  A.  Har- 
ding, of  the  Baltimore  Conference  ;  which,  on  motion,  the  Conference  made  the  spe- 
cial order  for  Tuesday  next. 

"  TUESDAY,  MAY  7. — On  motion,  the  rule  of  business  was  suspended  to  take  up 
the  special  order  of  the  day,  namely  :  The  appeal  of  Francis  A.  Harding,  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference. 

"  J.  Early  announced  that  the  appellant  was  present,  and  had  spoken  to  "W.  A. 
Smith  of  the  Virginia  Conference,  to  act  as  his  representative,  in  presenting  and 
prosecuting  the  appeal. 

"  The  journal  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  unfolding  its  action  in  regard  to  the 
appellant,  and  from  which  he  appeals,  was  read  by  the  Secretary.  From  this  it  ap- 
pears that  F.  A.  Harding  had  been  suspended  from  his  ministerial  standing  for 
refusing  to  manumit  certain  slaves  which  came  into  his  possession  by  his  marriage. 
On  motion  of  S.  Luckey  and  J.  B.  Finley,  the  appeal  was  admitted  and  entertained. 


58 

••  W.  A.  Smith,  in  behalf  of  the  appellant,  made  a  statement,  and  argued  the  case 
until  near  the  hour  of  adjournment.  When  he  had  concluded,  J.  A.  Collins  moved 
that  the  case  be  postponed,  and  made  the  special  order  for  to-morrow,  to  be  taken 
up  immediately  after  the  reading  of  the  journal.  Adopted. 

••  Wi;nxi:sn\Y,  MAY  8. — On  motion,  the  journal  of  yesterday  was  so  amended  as 
to  rend,  'the  order  of  business  according  to  the  rule  was  suspended,  to  take  up  the 
f  the  day,  namely:  the  appeal  of  F.  A.  Harding.'  The  journal  as  amended 
'proved  and  confirmed. 

••Tlie  consideration  of  the  appeal  case  before  the  Conference  yesterday  was 
resumed. 

••  J.  A.  Collins,  in  behalf  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  in  this  case,  addressed  the 
Conference  in  reply  to  W.  A.  Smith,  and  in  defence  of  the  action  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference,  until  eleven  o'clock.  H.  Sheer,  A.  Griffith,  and  T.  B.  Sargent,  were 
also  heard  for  the  Baltimore  Conference. 

••  When  the  delegates  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  had  spoken,  the  place  was 
given  to  the  representative  of  the  appellant  to  rejoin.  At  this  point,  J.  Early  moved 
that  the  further  consideration  of  this  case  be  postponed  until  to-morrow  morning  at 
ten  o'clock,  and  that  it  be  made  the  special  order  for  that  time.  J.  A.  Collins  moved 
to  amend,  by  inserting,  instead  of  ten  o'clock,  '  immediately  after  the  reading  of  the 
journal.'  This  was  lost.  N.  Rounds  moved  to  amend  by  inserting  '  three  o'clock 
to-morrow  afternoon.'  J.  A.  Collins  moved  further  to  amend  by  inserting  '  this  after- 
noon.' As  a  substitute,  W.  Capers  moved,  that  the  Conference  attend  to  this  busi- 
ness to-morrow  morning,  immediately  after  reading  the  journal.  W.  M'Mahan  moved, 
that  when  the  Conference  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  the  American  Bible  Society, 
to-morrow  morning  at  ten  o'clock.  This  motion  was  laid  on  the  table.  Finally,  at 
fifteen  minutes  before  one  o'clock,  E.  R.  Ames  moved  that  Conference  do  now  adjourn  ; 
which  motion  was  adopted,  and  Conference  separated  after  prayer  by  brother  Spaulding. 

••  FRIDAY,  MAY  10. — The  appeal  of  F.  A.  Harding  was  resumed.  By  consent  of 
W.  A.  Smith,  the  representative  of  the  appellant,  J.  A.  Collins,  who  acted  in  behalf 
of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  was  allowed  to  make  a  further  response  for  the  Balti- 
more Conference  to  the  statement  and  defence  of  W.  A.  Smith.  He  spoke  until 
within  five  minutes  of  eleven  o'clock. 

i;  When  W.  A.  Smith  was  about  to  reply,  Conference,  on  motion  of  T.  Crowder, 
resolved  to  prolong  the  session  until  he  should  have  concluded  his  rejoinder. 

"  W.  A.  Smith,  on  behalf  of  the  appellant,  was  then  heard  in  reply  to  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  Baltimore  Conference.  He  spoke  until  after  one  o'clock  ;  and  the 
pleadings  on  both  sides  were  closed. 

li  SATURDAY,  MAY  11. — On  motion  of  E.  R.  Ames,  the  rules  of  Conference  were 
suspended  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  the  appeal  of  F.  A.  Harding.  W.  A.  Smith 
came  forward  when  the  appeal  was  resumed,  and  asked  leave  to  make  further  state- 
ments in  regard  to  the  appellant.  A  motion  to  grant  leave  was  offered  and  carried. 
When  the  Conference  had  heard  Mr.  Smith,  J.  Early  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion, namely  : — 

'•  •  Resolved,  That  the  act  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  by  which  F.  A. 
Harding  was  suspended  from  his  ministerial  functions,  be,  and  the  same  is,  hereby 
reversed.' 

'•  The  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for,  and  ordered  by  a  vote  of  Conference  ;  and 
the  secretary  proceeded  to  call  the  list  by  conferences,  in  the  order  in  which  they 
htand  in  the  Discipline,  in  the  chapter  on  boundaries.  The  secretaries  reported  the 
vote  as  follows  : — Nays  117,  against  reversing  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence ;  and  56  yeas,  in  favour  of  reversing  that  decision." 

I  omit  the  lists  of  the  names  of  those  who  voted,  and  proceed  to  read  the  subse- 
quent proceedings  (p.  79) : — 

••  When  S.  Olin's  name  was  called,  he  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting  on  thi.s 
question,  because  indisposition  had  prevented  him  from  hearing  the  whole  case.  He. 
was,  on  motion,  excused. 

li  J.  A.  Gere  also  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting,  because  he  had  once  sat  in 
judgment  on  the  case,  and  had  been  called  upon  as  a  witness.  He  was  not  excused. 

"  It  appeared,  on  calling  the  list,  that  J.  G.  Dow,  R.  Paine,  and  L.  Scott  wen.- 
absent. 


59 

"  N.  Bangs  and  S.  Dunwody  were  reported  sick. 

"  So  the  motion  to  reverse  the  act  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  was  lost 
by  the  above  vote  of  117  to  56. 

"  The  chair  decided  that  this  vote  virtually  affirmed  the  action  of  the  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference,  in  suspending  Francis  A.  Harding  from  his  ministerial  standing. 
W.  Capers  took  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  chair.  The  appeal  was  put,  and 
the  decision  of  the  chair  sustained,  by  a  vote  of  1 11  for  sustaining  the  decision,  and 
53  against  sustaining  it.  So  the  vote  virtually  affirmed  the  action  of  the  Baltimore 
Conference  on  suspending  F.  A.  Harding." 

In  connexion  with  this,  I  call  your  Honours'  attention  to  the  question  of  Maryland 
Law  which  is  involved  in  it.  The  debates  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
(pp.  21,  22)  show  that  legal  opinions  were  produced  from  the  Honourable  William  D. 
Merrick,  U.  S.  Senator,  and  Mr.  Edmund  Key,  showing  that  Mr.  Harding  could  not 
manumit  his  slaves.  These  opinions  were  produced  before  a  committee  of  the  Balti- 
more Conference,  which  was  appointed  to  investigate  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding.  Mr. 
Merrick's  opinion  is  in  these  words  : — 

"  At  the  request  of  Mr.  Harding,  I  have  to  state  that,  under  the  laws  of  Maryland, 
no  slave  can  be  emancipated  to  remain  in  that  State,  nor  unless  provision  be  made 
by  the  person  emancipating  him  for  his  removal  from  the  State,  which  removal  must 
take  place,  unless  for  good  and  sufficient  reason  the  competent  authorities  grant  per- 
mission to  the  manumitted  slave  to  remain. 

"  There  has  lately  (winter  of  1843)  been  a  statute  enacted  by  the  State  legisla- 
ture, securing  to  married  females  the  property  (slaves  of  course  included)  which 
was  theirs  at  the  time  of  their  marriage,  and  protecting  it  from  the  power  and  liabili- 
ties of  their  husbands. 

(Signed)  "  WILLIAM  D.  MERRICK." 

The  opinion  of  Judge  Key  is  as  follows  : — 

"  The  Rev.  Mr.  Harding  having  married  Miss  Swan,  who,  at  the  time  of  her  mar- 
riage, was  entitled  to  some  slaves,  I  am  requested  to  say,  whether  he  can  legally 
manumit  them  or  not  1  By  an  act  of  Assembly,  no  person  can  manumit  a  slave  in 
Maryland  ;  and  by  another  act  of  our  Assembly,  a  husband  has  no  other  or  further 
right  to  his  wife's  slaves  than  their  labour,  while  he  lives.  He  can  neither  sell  nor 
liberate  them.  Neither  can  he  and  his  wife,  either  jointly  or  separately,  manumit 
her  slaves,  by  deed,  or  otherwise.  A  reference  to  the  Acts  of  Assembly  of  Maryland 
will  show  this.  "  EDMUND  KEY. 

"  Prince  George  County,  April  25th,  1844." 

The  law  of  Maryland,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  is  also  set  forth  in  the  debates  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1844 :  indeed,  there  are  several  of  them,  which  appear  to 
have  been  copied  from  books  in  the  library  of  the  Historical  Society  in  this  city. 
The  first  which  I  shall  read  is  chap.  293  : — 

"  SEC.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  That  from  and  after 
the  passage  of  this  act,  any  married  woman  may  become  seized  or  possessed  of  any 
property,  real  or  of  slaves,  by  direct  bequest,  demise,  gift,  purchase,  or  distribution, 
in  her  own  name,  and  as  of  her  own  property  ;  provided,  the  same  does  not  come 
from  her  husband  after  coverture. 

"  SEC.  2.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  hereafter,  when  any  woman  possessed  of  a  pro- 
perty in  slaves,  shall  marry,  her  property  in  such  slaves,  and  their  natural  increase, 
shall  continue  to  her,  notwithstanding  her  coverture ;  and  she  shall  have,  hold,  and 
possess  the  same  as  her  separate  property,  exempt  from  any  liability  for  the  debts  or 
contracts  of  the  husband. 

"  SEC.  3.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  when  any  woman  during  coverture  shall  become' 
entitled  to,  or  possessed  of,  slaves  by  conveyance,  gift,  inheritance,  distribution,  or 
otherwise,  such  slaves,  together  with  their  natural  increase,  shall  enure  and  belong  to 
the  wife  in  like  manner  as  is  above  provided  as  to  slaves  which  she  may  possess  at 
the  time  of  marriage. 


60 

"  SEC.  4.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  the  control  and  management  of  all  such  slaves. 
th«  direction  of  their  labour,  and  the  receipts  of  the  productions  thereof,  shall  remain 
!o  the  husband  agreeably  to  the  laws  heretofore  in  force.  All  suits  to  recover  the 
property  or  possession  of  such  slaves,  shall  be  prosecuted  or  defended,  as  the  case 
may  be.  in  the  joint  names  of  the  husband  and  wife  ;  in  case  of  the  death  of  the 
wito.  such  slaves  shall  descend  and  go  to  her  children,  and  their  descendants,  subject 
to  the  use  of  the  husband  during  life,  without  liability  to  his  creditors  ;  and  if  she  die 
without  leaving  children  living,  or  descendants  of  such  children  living,  they  shall  de- 
scend and  go  to  the  husband. 

"SEC.  5.  Be  it  enacted,  That  the  slaves  owned  by  a  femme-covert  under  the  provi- 
sions of  this  act,  may  be  sold  by  the  joint  deed  of  the  husband  and  wife,  executed, 
proved,  and  recorded  agreeably  to  the  laws  now  in  force  in  regard  to  the  conveyance 
of  real  estate  of  femme-coverts,  and  not  otherwise. 

"  SEC.  6.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  a  wife  shall  have  a  right  to  make  a  will, 
and  give  all  her  property,  or  any  part  thereof,  to  her  husband,  and  to  other  persons, 
with  the  consent  of  the  husband  subscribed  to  said  will ;  provided  always,  that  the 
wife  shall  have  been  privately  examined  by  the  witnesses  to  her  will,  apart  and  out 
of  the  presence  and  hearing  of  her  husband,  whether  she  doth  make  the  same  will 
freely  and  voluntarily,  and  without  being  induced  thereto  by  fear  or  threats  of,  or  ill 
usage  by,  said  husband,  and  says  she  does  it  willingly  and  freely  ;  provided,  that  no 
will  under  this  act  shall  be  valid,  unless  made  at  least  sixty  days  before  the  death  of 
the  testatrix." 

And  then,  on  the  subject  of  manumission,  we  have  an  extract  from  the  laws  of 
Maryland,  from  Dorsey's  "Laws  of  Maryland,"  in  1831.  I  read  from  the  debates 
of  the  Conference  of  1844,  p.  24  :— 

"  '  And 'be  it  enacted,  That  it  shall  hereafter  be  the  duty  of  every  clerk  of  a  county 
in  this  State,  whenever  a  deed  of  manumission  shall  be  left  in  his  office  for  record, 
and  of  every  register  of  wills  in  every  county  of  this  State,  whenever  a  will  manu- 
mitting a  slave  or  slaves  shall  be  admitted  to  probate,  to  send,  within  five  days  there- 
after (under  a  penalty  of  ten  dollars  for  each  and  every  omission  so  to  do,  to  be 
recovered  before  any  justice  of  the  peace,  one  half  whereof  shall  go  to  the  informer, 
and  the  other  half  to  the  State)  an  extract  from  such  deed  or  will,  stating  the  names, 
number,  and  ages  of  the  slave  or  slaves  so  manumitted,  a  list  whereof,  in  the  case 
of  the  will  so  proved,  shall  be  filed  therewith  by  the  executor  or  administrator  to  the 
board  of  managers  for  Maryland  for  removing  the  people  of  colour  of  said  State  ; 
and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  board,  on  receiving  the  same,  to  notify  the  American 
Colonization  Society,  or  the  Maryland  State  Colonization  Society  thereof,  and  to 
propose  to  such  society,  that  they  shall  engage,  at  the  expense  of  said  society,  to 
remove  said  slave  or  slaves  so  manumitted  to  Liberia  ;  and  if  the  said  society  shall 
so  engage,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  said  board  of  managers  to  have  the  said 
slave  or  slaves  delivered  to  the  agent  of  such  society,  at  such  place  as  the  said  society 
.shall  appoint  for  receiving  such  slave  or  slaves,  for  the  purpose  of  such  removal,  at 
such  time  as  the  said  society  shall  appoint  ;  and  in  case  the  said  society  shall  refuse 
so  to  receive  and  remove  the  person  or  persons  so  manumitted  and  offered  ;  or  in 
case  the  said  person  or  persons  shall  refuse  so  to  be  removed,  then  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  said  board  of  managers  to  remove  the  said  person  or  persons  to  such 
other  place  or  places  beyond  the  limits  of  this  State,  as  the  said  board  shall  approve 
of,  and  the  said  person  or  persons  shall  be  willing  to  go  to,  and  provide  for  their 
reception  and  support  such  place  or  places  as  the  board  may  think  necessary,  until 
they  shall  be  able  to  provide  for  themselves,  out  of  any  money  that  may  be  earned  by 
their  hire,  or  may  be  otherwise  provided  for  that  purpose  ;  and  in  case  the  said  per- 
son or  persons  shall  refuse  to  be  removed  to  any  place  beyond  the  limits  of  this 
State,  and  shall  persist  in  remaining  therein,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  said  board 
to  inform  the  sheriff  of  the  county  wherein  such  person  or  persons  maybe,  of  such 
refusal,  and  it  shall  thereupon  be  the  duty  of  said  sheriff  forthwith  to  arrest,  or  cause 
to  be  arrested,  the  said  person  or  persons  so  refusing  to  emigrate  from  this  State,  and 
transport  the  said  person  or  persons  beyond  the  limits  of  this  State  ;  and  all  slaves 
shall  be  capable  of  receiving  manumission  for  the  purpose  of  removal  as  aforesaid, 
with  their  consent,  of  whatever  ajje,  any  law  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.' 
Chap.  281,  sec.  3.'" 


61 

We  find  a  supplement  to  this  law  in  1832  : — 

"  '  CHAP.  145,  SEC.  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Maryland,  That 
whenever  the  board  of  managers,  appointed  under  the  act  to  which  this  is  a  supple- 
ment, shall  inform  the  sheriff  of  any  county  of  the  refusal  to  remove  any  person  or 
persons  therein  mentioned,  and  shall  provide  a  sum  sufficient  to  defray  the  removal 
of  said  person  or  persons  beyond  the  limits  of  the  State,  every  sheriff  then  failing  to 
comply,  within  the  term  of  one  month,  with  the  duties  prescribed  in  the  third  section 
of  the  act  aforesaid,  shall  forfeit  fifty  dollars  for  every  person  he  shall  neglect  so  to 
remove,  to  be  recoverable  in  the  county  court,  by  action  of  debt  on  indictment. 

"  'SEC.  2.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to 
repeal  any  part  of  the  act  to  which  this  is  a  supplement.' 

"  The  foregoing  is  a  copy,  corrected  by  myself,  from  the  acts  referred  to,  as  pub- 
lished in  Dorsey's  Laws  of  Maryland. 

"  GEORGE  H.  MOORE, 
Assistant  Librarian  New- York  Historical  Society." 

We  have  now,  may  it  please  your  Honours,  finished  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  and 
we  come  to  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  I  read  from  page  80  of  the  first  of  the 
Proofs : — 

"MONDAY,  MAY  20. — J.  A.  Collins  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was 
adopted,  viz.  : — 

•'  '  Whereas  it  is  currently  reported,  and  generally  understood,  that  one  of  the 
bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  become  connected  with  slavery  ; 
and  whereas  it  is  due  to  this  General  Conference  to  have  a  proper  understanding  of 
the  matter ;  therefore, 

"'Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy  be  instructed  to  ascertain  the 
facts  in  the  case,  and  report  the  results  of  their  investigation  to  this  body  to-morrow 
morning.  JOHN  A.  COLLINS, 

J.  B.  HoUGHTALING.' 

"  TUESDAY,  MAY  21. — The  Committee  on  Episcopacy  presented  a  further  report. 
No.  3,  which  was  read,  and  on  motion  of  J.  A.  Collins,  laid  on  the  table  to  be  the 
order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow. 

"  WEDNESDAY,  MAY  22. — As  no  reports  from  select  committees  were  offered,  on 
motion  of  A.  Griffith,  Conference  proceeded  to  consider  the  order  of  the  day,  viz., 
the  report  No.  3  of  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy.  It  reads  as  follows  : — 

"  '  The  Committee  on  Episcopacy,  to  whom  was  referred  a  resolution,  submitted 
yesterday,  instructing  them  to  inquire  whether  any  one  of  the  superintendents  is 
connected  with  slavery,  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  as  their  report  on  the 
subject  : — 

"  '  The  committee  had  ascertained,  previous  to  the  reference  of  the  resolution,  that 
Bishop  Andrew  is  connected  with  slavery,  and  had  obtained  an  interview  with  him 
on  the  subject ;  and  having  requested  him  to  state  the  whole  facts  in  the  premises, 
hereby  present  a  written  communication  from  him  in  relation  to  this  matter,  and  beg 
leave  to  offer  it  as  his  statement  and  explanation  of  the  case. 
'  To  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy  : — 

'  Dear  Brethren, — In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I  submit  the  following  statement  of  all 
the  facts  bearing  on  my  connexion  with  slavery.  Several  years  since  an  old  lady,  of 
Augusta,  Georgia,  bequeathed  to  me  a  mulatto  girl,  in  trust  that  I  should  take  care 
of  her  until  she  should  be  nineteen  years  of  age  ;  that  vrith  her  consent  I  should  then 
send  her  to  Liberia  ;  and  that  in  case  of  her  refusal,  I  should  keep  her,  and  make  her 
as  free  as  the  laws  of  the  State  of  Georgia  would  permit.  When  the  time  arrived, 
she  refused  to  go  to  Liberia,  and  of  her  own  choice  remains  legally  my  slave,  although 
I  derive  no  pecuniary  profit  from  her.  She  continues  to  live  in  her  own  house  on  my 
lot ;  and  has  been,  and  is  at  present,  at  perfect  liberty  to  go  to  a  free  State  at  her 
pleasure  ;  but  the  laws  of  the  State  will  not  permit  her  emancipation,  nor  admit 
such  deed  of  emancipation  to  record,  and  she  refuses  to  leave  the  State.  In  her 
case,  therefore,  I  have  been  made  a  slaveholder  legally,  but  not  with  my  own 
consent. 

'  2dly.  About  five  years  since,  the  mother  of  my  former  wife  left  to  her  daughter, 
not  to  me,  a  negro  boy ;  and  as  my  wife  died  without  a  will  more  than  two  years  since, 


62 

by  the  laws  of  the  State  he  becomes  legally  my  property.  In  this  case,  as  in  the 
•ormer,  emancipation  is  impracticable  in  the  State  ;  but  he  shall  be  at  liberty  to  leave 
te  whenever  I  shall  be  satisfied  that  he  is  prepared  to  provide  for  himself,  or  I 
.•an  have  sufficient  security  that  he  will  be  protected  and  provided  for  in  the  place  to 
which  he  may  go. 

'  3dlv.  In  the  month  of  January  last  I  married  my  present  wife,  she  being  at  the 
time  possessed  of  slaves,  inherited  from  her  former  hvisband's  estate,  and  belonging 
to  her.  Shortly  after  my  marriage,  being  unwilling  to  become  their  owner,  regarding 
them  as  strictly  hers,  and  the  law  not  permitting  their  emancipation,  I  secured  them 
to  her  by  a  deed  of  trust. 

•  It  will  be  obvious  to  you,  from  the  above  statement  of  facts,  that  I  have  neither 
bought  nor  sold  a  slave  ;  that  in  the  only  two  instances  in  which  I  am  legally  a 
slaveholder,  emancipation  is  impracticable.  As  to  the  servants  owned  by  my  wife,  I 
have  no  legal  responsibility  in  the  premises,  nor  could  my  wife  emancipate  them  if 
she  desired  to  do  so.  I  have  thus  plainly  stated  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  submit 
the  statement  for  the  consideration  of  the  General  Conference.  Yours  respectfully, 

'  JAMES  O.  ANDREW.' 

"  '  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

'"ROBERT  PAINE,  Chairman.'' 

"A.  Griffith  and  J.  Davis  offered  the  following  preamble  and  resolution,  which 
were  read  and  debated  : — 

"  'Whereas  the  Rev.  James  0.  Andrew,  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  has  become  connected  with  slavery,  as  communicated  in  his  statement 
in  his  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  the  Committee  on  the  Episcopacy,  which  reply  is  em- 
bodied in  their  report,  No.  3,  offered  yesterday ;  and  whereas  it  has  been,  from  the 
origin  of  said  Church,  a  settled  policy  and  the  invariable  usage  to  elect  no  person  to 
the  office  of  bishop  who  was  embarrassed  with  this  "  great  evil,"  as  under  such  cir- 
cumstances it  would  be  impossible  for  a  bishop  to  exercise  the  functions  and  perform 
the  duties  assigned  to  a  general  superintendent  with  acceptance,  in  that  large  portion 
of  his  charge  in  which  slavery  does  not  exist ;  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  was 
himself  nominated  by  our  brethren  of  the  slaveholding  States,  and  elected  by  the 
General  Conference  of  1832,  as  a  candidate,  who,  though  living  in  the  midst  of  a 
slaveholding  population,  was  nevertheless  free  from  all  personal  connexion  with 
slavery ;  and  whereas  this  is,  of  all  periods  in  our  history  as  a  Church,  the  one  least 
favourable  to  such  an  innovation  upon  the  practice  and  usage  of  Methodism  as  to 
confide  a  part  of  the  itinerant  general  superintendency  to  a  slaveholder  ;  therefore, 

" '  Resolved,  That  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew  be,  and  he  is  hereby  affectionately 
requested  to  resign  his  office  as  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.' 

"  When  brother  Griffith,  in  favour  of  his  resolution,  had  spoken  as  long  as  the 
rule  allowed,  a  motion  was  made  to  permit  him  to  proceed.  G.  Filmore  offered  as  a 
substitute  for  this,  that  the  rule  which  restricts  a  speaker  to  fifteen  minutes,  be  sus- 
pended during  the  discussion  of  this  subject.  The  substitute  prevailed,  by  a  vote  of 
one  hundred  and  three. 

"  On  motion  of  N.  Bangs,  it  was  resolved,  that  when  we  adjourn,  it  be  to  meet 
again  this  afternoon  at  half-past  three  o'clock,  one  hundred  and  four  voting  for  it. 

"  W.  Capers  then  moved,  that  we  do  now  adjourn.     Lost. 

"  J.  P.  Durbin  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  we  resolved  to  meet  this 
afternoon.  This  was  lost. 

"  The  motion  for  adjournment  was  renewed  and  carried  ;  and  Conference  ad- 
journed with  prayer  by  brother  Tippett. 

"  WEDNESDAY  AFTERNOON,  MAY  22. — Conference  met,  pursuant  to  adjournment, 
at  half-past  three  o'clock,  Bishop  Soule  in  the  chair,  and  was  opened  with  religious 
services  by  brother  Fowler. 

"  The  chair  called  for  reports  from  standing  and  select  committees.  None  being 
offered,  W.  Cooper  moved  that  the  resolution  under  discussion  this  morning  be  post- 
poned, and  made  the  order  of  the  day  for  to-morrow  morning.  Lost.  The  conside- 
ration was  resumed,  and  several  speakers  were  heard. 

'  On  motion  of  J.  A.  Collins,  Conference  adjourned  with  prayer  by  brother  Bond. 

"  THURSDAY  MORNING,  MAY  23. — Conference  met  at  the  regular  hour,  Bishop 
Hedding  in  the  chair,  and  was  opened  with  religious  exercises  by  brother  Robinson. 

"  The  journal  of  yesterday  afternoon  was  read  and  approved. 


63 

"  The  chair  called  for  reports  from  standing  and  select  committees.  None  were 
presented. 

"  Conference  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  resolution  under  discussion  yester- 
day, viz.,  the  resolution  offered  by  brothers  Griffith  and  Davis  on  Wednesday. 

"  J.  B.  Finley  offered  a  substitute  for  the  resolution,  in  the  following  word?, 
viz. : — 

"  '  Whereas  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated  to 
destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has 
become  connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference,  will 
greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if 
not  in  some  places  entirely  prevent  it ;  therefore, 

"  '  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from  the 
exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains. 

" '  J.  B.  FIN-LEY, 
J.  M.  TRIMBLE.' 

"  A  discussion  on  the  above  substitute  ensued,  occupying  the  morning  session.  A 
few  minutes  before  one  o'clock,  when  W.  D.  Cass  was  speaking,  it  was  resolved  to 
continue  the  session  five  minutes  after  the  regular  time,  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  a 
statement  which  J.  Early  wished  to  make.  When  this  was  made,  Conference 
adjourned  with  prayer  by  brother  Steele. 

"  FRIDAY,  MAY  24. — The  order  of  the  day,  namely,  the  above-named  substitute, 
(Finley's,)  was  resumed,  and  its  discussion  continued  until  one  o'clock,  when  Confer- 
ence adjourned  with  prayer  by  brother  Ferguson. 

"  SATURDAY,  MAY  25. — The  order  of  the  day,  namely,  the  substitute  of  brothers 
Finley  and  Trimble,  for  the  resolution  offered  by  brothers  Griffith  and  Davis,  was 
resumed. 

"  During  the  discussion,  J.  P.  Durbin  asked  leave  of  absence,  on  account  of  family 
affliction.  The  leave  was  granted. 

•'  After  the  consideration  of  the  substitute  had  been  resumed,  G.  Baker  moved 
that  the  vote  by  which  the  rule  limiting  a  speaker  to  fifteen  minutes  had  been  sus- 
pended, be  reconsidered.  On  motion  of  J.  E.  Evans,  the  proposal  to  reconsider  was 
laid  on  the  table.  The  discussion  was  continued  until  fifteen  minutes  before  the 
hour  of  adjournment,  when,  on  motion  of  L.  M.  Lee,  Conference  adjourned  with 
prayer  by  brother  Bush. 

"  MONDAY,  MAY  27. — The  whole  session  was  occupied  in  discussing  the  substitute 
under  consideration  for  some  days  past. 

"  TUESDAY  MORNING,  MAY  28. — Conference  resumed  the  consideration  of  Finley's 
substitute.  J.  A.  Collins,  who  was  speaking  at  the  adjournment  yesterday,  concluded 
his  remarks,  and  was  followed  by  E.  W.  Sehon,  W.  Winans,  and  J.  B.  Finley. 
Bishop  Andrew  also  addressed  the  Conference. 

"At  the  request  of  T.  Crowder,  brother  Finley  gave  way  to  permit  him  to  ofier  the 
following  resolution  : — 

"  '  Resolved.  That  when  this  Conference  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  again  at  half- 
past  three  o'clock.' 

"  The  resolution  prevailed.  P.  Cartwright  obtained  the  floor,  but  the  hour  of 
adjournment  having  come,  Conference  adjourned  with  prayer  by  brother  A.  D.  Peck. 

"  TUESDAY  AFTERNOON,  MAY  28. — The  subject  under  consideration  at  the  adjourn- 
ment was  resumed,  and  discussed  by  P.  Cartwright  and  J.  Stamper. 

"When  P.  Cartwright  had  concluded  his  remarks,  P.  Crandall  offered  a  resolution, 
that  the  discussion  on  this  question  close  at  half-past  five  o'clock  this  afternoon. 
J.  A.  Collins  rose  to  a  point  of  order,  whether  the  resolution  could  be  entertained,  the 
Conference  having  no  rule  for  the  previous  question.  The  chair  decided  that  the 
resolution  was  not  in  order.  From  this  decision  J.  B.  Houghtaling  appealed ;  and 
the  decision  of  the  chair  was  sustained  by  a  vote  of  one  hundred  and  three. 

"  S.  Dunwody  obtained  the  floor,  but  gave  way  for  a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  was 
withdrawn  to  permit  Bishop  Soule  to  make  a  few  remarks,  asking  leave  of  the  Con- 
ference, before  the  final  action,  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  subject  now  under  con- 
sideration. J.  Early  moved  that  Bishop  Soule  and  all  the  other  bishops  be  at  liberty 
to  address  the  Conference  on  the  subject  now  under  consideration,  at  any  time  after 
brother  Dunwody  has  concluded  his  remarks. 


64 

''  Without  taking  the  vote,  on  motion,  Conference  adjourned  with  the  benediction 
by  Bishop  Waugh, 

•-  WKDIOMDAI  MORNING,  MAY  29. — Conference  took  up  the  resolution  of  J.  Early, 
which  was  under  discussion  when  Conference  adjourned.  A  motion  was  made  to  lay 
the  resolution  on  the  table,  which  prevailed.  J.  S.  Porter  moved  to  reconsider  the 
last  vote.  Carried.  J.  P.  Durbin  moved  the  previous  question,  which  being  sus- 
tained, the  vote  on  the  resolution  before  the  Conference  was  taken,  and  the  resolution 
was  adopted. 

"  The  Conference  renewed  the  consideration  of  the  substitute  offered  by  J.  B. 
Finley.  8.  Dunwody  addressed  the  Conference,  and  was  followed  by  Bishop  Soule. 

••S".  Bangs  moved,  that  when  Conference  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  again  at 
half-past  three  o'clock  this  afternoon.  Carried. 

"  Bishop  Soule  having  concluded  his  remarks,  the  Conference  adjourned  with  the 
benediction  by  brother  Dunwody." 

I  will  hereafter  read  the  remarks  of  Bishop  Soule  from  the  debates  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844 ;  but,  before  doing  so,  I  beg  your  Honours  to  notice  the 
dates  of  the  proceedings  which  have  been  read,  that  you  may  see  how  long  the  dis- 
cussion continued. 

"  WEDNESDAY  AFTERNOON,  MAY  29. — Conference  resumed  the  consideration  of 
the  substitute  of  J.  B.  Finley.  J.  P.  Durbin  addressed  the  Conference,  after  some 
explanation  by  W.  A.  Smith,  A.  B.  Longstreet,  and  others.  W.  Capers  then 
obtained  the  floor,  but  gave  way  for  a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  being  put  was  car- 
ried. 

"  THURSDAY,  MAY  30. — The  consideration  of  Finley's  substitute  was  resumed,  W. 
Capers  having  the  floor,  who  addressed  the  Conference.  When  he  had  concluded, 
G.  Peck  obtained  the  floor,  but  yielded  it  to  J.  Hobart,  who  moved  the  previous 
question.  J.  P.  Durbin  moved,  that  on  the  vote  whether  the  main  question  shall 
now  be  put,  the  ayes  and  noes  be  taken.  The  ayes  and  noes  were  ordered  by  a  vote 
of  one  hundred  and  seventeen. 

"  The  list  was  called,  and  ninety-eight  answered  in  favour  of  putting  the  main 
question,  and  eighty  against  it. 

"  So  the  motion  to  take  the  main  question  was  lost,  not  having  a  majority  of  two- 
thirds. 

"  At  this  moment  Bishop  Hedding  suggested  that  the  Conference  have  no  after- 
noon session,  and  thus  allow  the  bishops  time  to  consult  together,  with  a  hope  that 
they  might  be  able  to  present  a  plan  of  adjusting  our  present  difficulties.  The 
suggestion  was  received  with  general  and  great  cordiality ;  and,  on  motion,  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  substitute  under  consideration  was  postponed  until  to-morrow  morning. 

"FRIDAY,  MAY  31. — Bishop  Waugh,  in  behalf  of  the  bishops,  presented  the 
following  communication,  which  was  read  by  himself,  and  also  by  the  Secretary : — 

"  '  To  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  '  REV.  AND  DEAR  BRETHREN, — The  undersigned  respectfully  and  affectionately 
offer  to  your  calm  consideration  the  result  of  their  consultation  this  afternoon  in 
regard  to  the  unpleasant  and  very  delicate  question  which  has  been  so  long  and  so 
earnestly  debated  before  your  body.  They  have,  with  the  liveliest  interest,  watched 
the  progress  of  the  discussion,  and  have  awaited  its  termination  with  the  deepest 
solicitude.  As  they  have  pored  over  this  subject  with  anxious  thought,  by  day  and 
by  night,  they  have  been  more  and  more  impressed  with  the  difficulties  connected 
therewith,  and  the  disastrous  results  which,  in  their  apprehension,  are  the  almost 
inevitable  consequences  of  present  action  on  the  question  now  pending  before  you. 
To  the  undersigned  it  is  fully  apparent  that  a  decision  thereon,  whether  affirmatively 
or  negatively,  will  most  extensively  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  of  that  widely- 
extended  brotherhood  which  has  so  effectively  operated  for  good  in  the  United  States 
of  America  and  elsewhere  during  the  last  sixty  years,  in  the  development  of  a  system 
of  active  energy,  of  which  union  has  always  been  a  main  element.  They  have,  with 
deep  emotion,  inquired,  Can  anything  be  done  to  avoid  an  evil  so  much  deprecated 
by  every  friend  of  our  common  Methodism  ?  Long  and  anxiously  have  they  waited 
for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  inquiry,  but  they  have  paused  in  vain.  At  this  pain- 


65 

ful  crisis  they  have  unanimously  concurred  in  the  propriety  of  recommending  the 
postponement  of  further  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  until  the  ensuing 
General  Conference.  It  does  not  enter  into  the  design  of  the  undersigned  to 
argue  the  propriety  of  their  recommendation ;  otherwise,  strong  and  valid  reasons 
might  be  adduced  in  its  support.  They  cannot  but  think  that  if  the  embarrassment 
of  Bishop  Andrew  should  not  cease  before  that  time,  the  next  General  Conference, 
representing  the  pastors,  ministers,  and  people  of  the  several  annual  conferences, 
after  all  the  facts  in  the  case  shall  have  passed  in  review  before  them,  will  be  better 
qualified  than  the  present  General  Conference  can  be  to  adjudicate  the  case  wisely 
and  discreetly.  Until  the  cessation  of  the  embarrassment,  or  the  expiration  of  the 
interval  between  the  present  and  the  ensuing  General  Conference,  the  undersigned 
believe  that  such  a  division  of  the  work  of  the  general  superintendency  might  be 
made,  without  any  infraction  of  a  constitutional  principle,  as  would  fully  employ 
Bishop  Andrew  in  those  sections  of  the  Church  in  which  his  presence  and  services 
would  be  welcome  and  cordial.  If  the  course  pursued  on  this  occasion  by  the  under- 
signed be  deemed  a  novel  one,  they  persuade  themselves  that  their  justification,  in 
the  view  of  all  candid  and  peace-loving  persons,  will  be  found  in  their  strong  desire 
to  prevent  disunion,  and  to  promote  harmony  in  the  Church. 
"  '  Very  respectfully  and  affectionately  submitted, 

" ' JOSHUA  SOULE, 
ELIJAH  HEDDING, 
B.  WAUGH, 
T.  A.  MORRIS. 
-  ;  Thursday  Afternoon,  May  30,  1844.' 

•'J.  A.  Collins  moved  that  the  consideration  of  the  communication  just  read  be 
postponed  until  to-morrow  morning,  and  that  the  communication  itself  be  printed 
forthwith.  A  third  reading  was  called  for,  and  ordered  by  the  Conference.  I. 
Winner  moved  to  amend  the  above  resolution  by  striking  out  '  to-morrow  morning,' 
and  inserting  •  four  o'clock  this  afternoon.'  This  amendment,  on  motion  of  J. 
Stamper,  was  laid  on  the  table.  T.  Stringfield  called  for  a  division  of  the  resolu- 
tion ;  and  that  part  which  relates  to  the  printing  was  adopted.  The  other  member 
of  the  resolution  was  also  adopted. 

"  SATURDAY,  JUNE  1. — At  this  juncture  all  the  bishops  on  the  platform  addressed 
the  Conference,  in  the  following  order  : — 

•'  BISHOP  HEDDING  said  he  wished  to  withdraw  his  name  from  the  Address  of  the 
Bishops,  presented  yesterday.  He  had  not  been  argued  or  persuaded  into  signing 
it,  but  had  attached  his  name  of  his  own  free  will  and  accord,  because  he  thought  it 
would  be  a  peace  measure  ;  but  facts  had  come  to  his  knowledge  since,  which  led 
him  to  believe  that  such  would  not  be  the  case.  Again  :  he  thought  it  would  be 
adopted  without  debate,  but  he  was  convinced  now  that  it  would  give  rise  to  much 
discussion,  and  therefore  he  wished  to  withdraw  his  name  from  the  paper  on  the 
table. 

"  BISHOP  WAUGH  followed,  and  said  he  came  into  the  measure,  as  his '  venerated 
and  honoured  colleague  did,  without  persuasion  or  restraint.  He  considered  it  as 
the  last  resort  to  promote  the  future  peace  of  the  Church.  He  admitted  he  had  not 
been  very  sanguine  on  the  subject,  and  if  it  failed,  he  would  not  be  disappointed. 
Still  he  did  not  desire  to  withdraw  his  name ;  he  would  regret  if  the  communication 
should  be  the  cause  of  lengthened  debate,  and  in  that  case  might  feel  called  upon 
to  withdraw  his  name  from  the  document.  At  present  he  was  content  to  let  it  remain. 

"  BISHOP  MORRIS  succeeded,  and  said  he  wished  his  name  to  stand  on  that  paper, 
as  a  testimony  that  he  had  done  what  he  could  to  preserve  the  unity  and  peace  of 
the  Church. 

"  BISHOP  SOULE  added,  that  his  colleagues  would  certainly  say,  that  they  adopted 
the  paper  as  freely  as  he  did.  He  put  his  name  to  that  document  under  the  same 
circumstances  as  they  did.  He  had  not  changed  his  views  or  convictions  in  any  way, 
He  wished  his  signature  to  stand  to  that  document,  which  had  now  gone  forth  to  the 
American  people  through  a  thousand  mediums. 

"  N.  Bangs  moved  to  lay  the  Address  on  the  table.  J.  Early  moved  that  the 
question  of  laying  it  on  the  table  be  taken  by  ayes  and  noes.  This  prevailed.  The 
vote  was  then  taken,  and  ninety-five  affirmative  and  eighty-four  negative  votes  were 
given.  So  the  Address  of  the  Bishops  was  laid  on  the  table. 

5 


"  J.  A.  Collins  moved  to  take  up  the  substitute  of  J.  B.  Finley,  which  had  been 
laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  some  days  ago.  J.  C.  Evans  moved  the  previous  ques- 
tion on  taking  up  the  substitute.  The  call  for  the  previous  question  was  sustained 
by  two-thirds'  voting  affirmatively;  and  the  substitute  was  taken  up  by  another  vote. 
J.  T.  Peck  moved  the  previous  question  on  the  substitute,  and  the  words,  '  Shall 
the  main  question  now  be  put?'  applied  to  the  substitute,  according  to  the  resolution 
establishing  the  previous  question.  A  motion  that  the  vote  whether  the  main  ques- 
tion now  be  taken  shall  be  by  yeas  and  nays,  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  128  to  47.  The 
call  for  the  previous  question  was  sustained  by  the  requisite  majority,  and  the  vote 
on  the  substitute  being  ordered,  it  was  moved  to  take  this  vote  by  yeas  and  nays. 
The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered.  The  list  by  conferences  was  called,  and  the  vote 
on  the  substitute  was  decided  by  110  yeas,  and  68  nays.  So  conference  adopted 
the  substitute  of  James  B.  Finley,  which  is  in  these  words : — 

"  '  Whereas  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated  to 
destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has  be- 
come connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference,  will  great- 
ly embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if  not 
in  some  places  entirely  prevent  it ;  therefore, 

" '  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from 
the  exercise  of  his  office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains.' 

"  During  the  call  for  yeas  and  nays,  J.  C.  Clark  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting, 
as  he  was  compelled,  by  the  want  of  health  in  some  members  of  his  family,  to  remove 
from  Texas.  Conference  by  a  vote  declined  excusing  him." 

If  your  Honours  please,  I  beg  leave  here  to  read  two  resolutions  which  were  offered 
in  that  Conference.  I  read  from  book  of  Proofs,  No.  2,  pp.  6,  7. 

"  Mr.  Drake's  resolution  proposed,  but  not  acted  on,  in  General  Conference  of  1844. 

"  '  Whereas  there  have  been  found  difficulties  of  a  serious  nature  in  the  bishops  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  exercising  a  general  superintendency ;  therefore, 

"  'Resolved,  That  the  General  Conference  recommend  the  episcopacy  to  assign  to 
each  superintendent  his  sphere  of  labour  for  the  next  four  years.' 

"  This  proposition,  not  being  in  order,  was  offered  as  a  suggestion,  and  no  action 
was  had  on  it. 

"  Mr.  Durbin's  resolve  not  passed  in  that  Conference. 

" '  Resolved,  That  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  be  referred  to  the  Church,  and  that 
the  judgment  of  the  next  General  Conference  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  the  voice 
of  the  Church,  whether  Bishop  Andrew  shall  continue  to  exercise  his  functions  as  a 
general  superintendent  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  while  he  sustains  the  rela- 
tion to  slavery  as  stated  in  his  communication  to  the  Conference,  as  reported  to  the 
Conference  by  the  Committee  on  Episcopacy.'  " 

I  now  return  to  the  first  of  the  Proofs,  page  94. 

"  L.  Pierce  gave  notice  that  a  Protest  would  be  presented  by  the  minority  on  this 
vote,  at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable ;  to  be  entered  on  the  journals  of  the  Conference. 

"  W.  Winans  moved  that  the  Conference  do  now  adjourn.  This  motion  was  car- 
ried. After  prayer  by  brother  Sovereign,  conference  adjourned  until  Monday  morn- 
ing, at  half-past  eight  o'clock. 

"  MONDAY,  JUNE  3. — The  following  resolutions  were  offered  by  H.  Slicer  and  T. 
B.  Sargent : — 

"'  1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  the  vote  of 
Saturday  last,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  be  understood  as  advisory  only,  and  not 
in  the  light  of  a  judicial  mandate. 

"  '  2.  Resolved,  That  the  final  disposition  of  Bishop  Andrew's  case  be  postponed 
until  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  in  conformity  with  the  suggestion  of  the 
bishops  in  their  Address  to  the  Conference  on  Friday,  31st  May. 

"'H.  SLICER, 

"  '  June  3,  1844.'  T.  B.  SARGENT. 

5* 


67 

"  It  was  moved  to  lay  these  resolutions  on  the  table  for  the  present.  On  the  ques- 
tion of  laying  them  on  the  table,  the  yeas  and  nays  were  called  for,  and  ordered. — 
Ayes  75,  Noes  68. 

"  So  the  resolutions,  for  the  present,  are  laid  on  the  table." 

I  believe  that  they  were  never  afterwards  called  up  again,  so  that  the  Conference 
resolved  not  to  put  that  construction  upon  its  acts. 

"  Dr.  Capers  offered  a  series  of  resolutions,  which  were  read,  and  lie  on  the  table, 
under  the  rule.  They  are  as  follows  : — 

"  '  Be  it  resolved  by  the  delegates  of  all  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled  : 

"  '  That  we  recommend  to  the  annual  conferences  to  suspend  the  constitutional  re- 
strictions which  limit  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  so  far,  and  so  far  only, 
as  to  allow  of  the  following  alterations  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  namely  : — 

"  '  That  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States  and  territories,  and 
the  republic  of  Texas,  shall  constitute  two  General  Conferences,  to  meet  quadren- 
nially, the  one  at  some  place  south,  and  the  other  north  of  the  line  which  now  di- 
vides between  the  States  commonly  designated  as  free  States  and  those  in  which 
slavery  exists. 

"  '  2.  That  each  one  of  the  two  General  Conferences  thus  constituted  shall  have 
full  powers,  under  the  limitations  and  restrictions  which  are  now  of  force  and  binding 
on  the  General  Conference,  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church,  within 
their  territorial  limits  respectively,  and  to  elect  bishops  for  the  same. 

"  '  3.  That  the  two  General  Conferences  aforesaid,  shall  have  jurisdiction  as  fol- 
lows : — The  Southern  General  Conference  shall  comprehend  the  States  of  Virginia, 
Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  and  the  States  and  Territories  lying  southerly  thereto,  and 
also  the  republic  of  Texas,  to  be  known  and  designated  by  the  title  of  the  Southern 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States.  And 
the  Northern  General  Conference  to  comprehend  all  those  States  and  Territories 
lying  north  of  the  States  of  Virginia,  Kentucky,  and  Missouri,  as  above,  to  be  known 
and  designated  by  the  title  of  the  Northern  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States. 

"  '  4.  And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  as  soon  as  three-fourths  of  all  the  members 
of  all  the  annual  conferences  voting  on  these  resolutions,  shall  approve  the  same,  the 
said  Southern  and  Northern  General  Conferences  shall  be  deemed  as  having  been 
constituted  by  such  approval  ;  and  it  shall  be  competent  for  the  Southern  annual  con- 
ferences to  elect  delegates  to  said  Southern  General  Conference,  to  meet  in  the  city 
of  Nashville,  Tenn.,  on  the  first  of  May,  1848  ;  or  sooner,  if  a  majority  of  two-thirds 
of  the  members  of  the  annual  conferences  composing  that  General  Conference  shall 
desire  the  same. 

" '  5.  And  be  it  further  resolved,  as  aforesaid,  That  the  Book  Concerns  at  New- 
York  and  Cincinnati  shall  be  held  and  conducted  as  the  property  and  for  the  benefit 
of  all  the  annual  conferences  as  heretofore — the  editors  and  agents  to  be  elected 
once  in  four  years  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  the  Northern  General  Conference, 
and  the  votes  of  the  Southern  General  Conference  to  be  cast  by  the  delegates  of  that 
Conference  attending  the  Northern  for  that  purpose. 

"  '  6.  And  be  it  further  resolved,  That  our  Church  organization  for  foreign  mis- 
sions shall  be  maintained  and  conducted  jointly  between  the  two  General  Confer- 
ences as  one  Church,  in  such  manner  as  shall  be  agreed  upon  from  time  to  time 
between  the  two  great  branches  of  the  Church  as  represented  in  the  said  two 
Conferences.' 

"  On  motion  of  N.  Bangs,  the  resolutions  offered  by  W.  Capers  this  morning  were 
referred  to  a  select  committee  of  nine,  who  were  instructed  to  report  on  them  as 
soon  as  practicable." 

It  was  in  reference  to  these  resolutions  that  the  report  was  made  by  a  committee 
of  nine,  which  we  call  a  "  Plan  of  Separation." 

MR.  FANCHER, — The  committee  of  nine  to  which  those  resolutions  were  referred, 
as  is  shown  by  the  proceedings  which  have  been  read,  did  not  make  a  report.  That 


68 

committee  could  not  agree.     The  Plan.of  Separation  was  reported  by  another  com- 
mittee of  nine. 

MR.  LORD, — That  is  shown  by  the  journal. 

"WEDNESDAY,  JUNE  5. — W.  Capers  returned  certain  resolutions  to  the  Confer- 
ence, on  which  a  special  committee  was  appointed,  stating  that  the  committee  could 
not  agree  on  a  report  which  they  judged  would  be  acceptable  to  the  Conference. — 
See  Journal  of  June  3,  p.  86. 

"  A.  B.  Longstreet,  in  behalf  of  the  delegations  from  the  Southern  and  South- 
western conferences,  presented  the  following  declaration,  which  was  read"  : — 

I  beg  your  Honours  to  mark  this.     It  is  called  a  "  Declaration." 

"  The  delegates  of  the  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States  take  leave  to 
declare  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  con- 
tinued agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church ; 
the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference  ;  and  especially  the 
extra-judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  which  resulted,  on  Saturday  last, 
in  the  virtual  suspension  of  him  from  his  office  as  superintendent,  must  produce  a 
state  of  things  in  the  South,  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this 
General  Conference  over  these  conferences  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  min- 
istry in  the  slave-holding  States." 

This  was  signed  by  fifty-two  gentlemen  from  the  Southern  conferences,  whose 
names  may  be  found  on  pp.  97,  98. 

"  A  motion  was  made  by  C.  Elliott  to  refer  this  declaration  to  a  committee  of  nine. 
This  gave  rise  to  some  discussion ;  and  the  previous  question  was  moved,  and  the 
call  sustained.  The  select  committee  of  nine  was  ordered,  and  the  paper  referred 
to  them. 

"  J.  B.  M'Ferrin  offered  the  following  resolution  : — 

"  '  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  com- 
munication of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  conferences  be  instructed,  provided 
they  cannot  in  their  judgment  devise  a  plan  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the 
difficulties  now  existing  in  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  to  devise,  if  pos- 
sible, a  constitutional  plan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the  Church. 

"  '  J.  B.  M'FERRIN, 
TOBIAS  SPICER.' 

"  T.  Crowder's motion  to  strikeout  the  word  '  constitutional'  did  not  prevail,  and 
the  resolution  was  adopted. 

"  The  chair  announced  the  following  brethren  as  the  select  COMMITTEE  OF  NINE, — 
Robert  Paine,  Glezen  Filmore,  Peter  Akers,  Nathan  Bangs,  Thomas  Crowder, 
Thomas  B.  Sargent,  William  Winans,  Leonidas  L.  Hamline,  and  James  Porter." 

Of  this  committee,  I  may  mention,  five  voted  against  Bishop  Andrew  and  four  for 
him.  It  was  therefore  a  committee  of  a  compromise  character. 

"  THURSDAY,  JUNE  6. — J.  Early  asked  that  H.  B.  Bascom  have  leave  to  read  to 
the  Conference  the  Protest  that  L.  Pierce,  on  Saturday,  gave  notice  would  be  pre- 
sented by  the  Southern  delegates.  When  the  reading  by  Dr.  Bascom  was  finished, 
the  Chair  decided  that  the  Protest  be  entered  upon  the  journal. 

"  Mr.  Simpson  offered  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted  : — 
"  '  Resolved,  That  the  Conference  appoint  brothers  Olin,  Durbin,  and  Hamline,  a 
committee  to  prepare  a  statement  of  the  facts  connected  with  the  proceedings  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew  ;  and  that  they  have  liberty  to  examine  the  Protest  just  pre- 
sented by  the  Southern  brethren."  ' 

With  the  permission  of  your  Honours,  my  venerable  friend,  Dr.  Smith,  will  read  the 
Protest  to  which  these  proceedings  refer. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Smith  read  it  as  follows  : — 


"THE  PROTEST. 

"  Protest  of  the  Minority  of  the  General  Conference  against  the  Action  of  that  Body 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  In  behalf  of  thirteen  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  portions  of  the  ministry  and  membership  of  several  other  conferences,  embracing 
nearly  five  thousand  ministers,  travelling  and  local,  and  a  membership  of  nearly  five 
hundred  thousand,  constitutionally  represented  in  this  General  Conference,  we,  the 
undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  after  mature  reflection,  impelled  by  convictions  we  cannot 
resist,  and  in  conformity  with  the  rights  and  usages  of  minorities,  in  the  instance  of 
deliberative  assemblies  and  judicial  tribunals,  in  similar  circumstances  of  division  and 
disagreement,  do  most  solemnly,  and  in  due  form,  protest  against  the  recent  act  of  a 
majority  of  this  General  Conference,  in  an  attempt,  as  understood  by  the  minority, 
to  degrade  and  punish  the  Rev.  James  0.  Andrew,  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  by  declaring  it  to  be  the  sense  or  judgment  of  the  General 
Conference  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions,  without  the 
exhibition  of  any  alleged  offence  against  the  laws  or  discipline  of  the  Church,  without 
form  of  trial,  or  legal  conviction  of  any  kind,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  charge  of 
want  of  qualification  or  faithfulness  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  pertaining  to 
his  office. 

"  We  protest  against  the  act  of  the  majority  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as 
extra-judicial  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  being  both  without  law  and  contrary  to 
law.  We  protest  against  the  act,  because  we  recognise  in  this  General  Conference 
no  right,  power,  or  authority,  ministerial,  judicial,  or  administrative,  to  suspend  or 
depose  a  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  otherwise  subject  him  to  any 
official  disability  whatever,  without  the  formal  presentation  of  a  charge  or  charges, 
alleging  that  the  bishop  to  be  dealt  with  has  been  guilty  of  the  violation  of  some 
law,  or  at  least  some  disciplinary  obligation  of  the  Church,  and  also  upon  conviction 
of  such  charge,  after  due  form  of  trial.  We  protest  against  the  act  in  question  as  a 
violation  of  the  fundamental  law,  usually  known  as  the  compromise  law  of  the 
Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery — the  only  law  which  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  which,  until  it  is 
constitutionally  revoked,  is  guaranteed  by  the  honour  and  good  faith  of  this  body,  as 
the  representative  assembly  of  the  thirty-three  annual  conferences  known  as  contract- 
ing parties  in  the  premises. 

"  And  we  protest  against  the  act  further,  as  an  attempt  to  establish  a  dangerous 
precedent,  subversive  of  the  union  and  stability  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  especially  as  placing  in  jeopardy  the  general  superintendency  of  the  Church,  by 
subjecting  any  bishop  of  the  Church  at  any  time  to  the  will  and  caprice  of  a  majority 
of  the  General  Conference,  not  only  without  law,  but  in  defiance  of  the  restraints 
and  provisions  of  law.  The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  General  Conference,  in 
protesting,  as  they  do,  against  the  late  act  of  the  majority,  in  the  virtual  suspension 
of  Bishop  Andrew,  regard  it  as  due  to  themselves  and  those  they  represent,  as  well 
as  the  character  and  interests  of  the  Church  at  large,  to  declare,  by  solemn  and  for- 
mal avowal,  that  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  entire  subject,  in  all  its  relations 
and  bearings,  they  protest  as  above,  for  the  reasons  and  upon  the  grounds  following, 
viz  : — 1st.  The  proceeding  against  Bishop  Andrew  in  this  General  Conference  has 
been  upon  the  assumption  that  he  is  connected  with  slavery — that  he  is  the  legal 
holder  and  owner  of  slave  property.  On  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  both  as  it  regards  the  ministry  and  membership,  we  have  special 
law,  upon  which  the  adjudication  of  all  questions  of  slavery  must,  by  intention  of  law, 
proceed.  The  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  therefore,  presents  a  simple  question  of  law 
and  fact,  and  the  undersigned  cannot  consent  that  the  force  of  circumstances,  and 
other  merely  extrinsic  considerations,  shall  be  allowed  to  lead  to  any  issue,  except 
that  indicated  by  the  law  and  the  facts  in  the  case.  In  the  late  act  of  the  majority, 
law,  express  law,  is  appealed  from,  and  expediency  in  view  of  circumstances — 
relative  propriety — assumed  necessity,  is  substituted  in  its  place  as  a  rule  of  judg- 
ment. It  is  assumed,  and  the  assumption  acted  upon,  that  expediency  may  have 
jurisdiction  even  in  the  presence  of  law — the  law,  too,  being  special,  and  covering 
the  case  in  terms.  In  the  abscifte  of  law,  it  might  be  competent  for  the  General 


70 

Conference  to  act  upon  other  grounds  ;  this  is  not  disputed,  nor  yet  that  it  would 
have  been  competent  for  the  Conference  to  proceed  upon  the  forms  of  law — but  that 
the  terms  and  conditions  of  a  special  enactment,  having  all  the  force  of  a  common 
public  charter,  can  be  rightfully  waved  in  practice,  at  the  promptings  of  a  fugitive, 
unsettled  expediency,  is  a  position  the  undersigned  regard,  not  merely  as  erroneous, 
but  as  fraught  with  danger  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church. 

"The  law  of  the  Church  on  slavery  has  always  existed,  since  1785,  but  especially 
since  1804,  and  in  view  of  the  adjustment  of  the  whole  subject  in  1816,  as  a  virtual, 
though  informal,  contract  of  mutual  concession  and  forbearance  between  the  North  and 
the  South,  then,  as  now,  known  and  existing  as  distinct  parties,  in  relation  to  the 
vexed  questions  of  slavery  and  abolition  ; — those  conferences  found  in  States  where 
slavery  prevailed  constituting  the  Southern  party,  and  those  in  the  non-slaveholding 
States,  the  Northern,  exceptions  to  the  rule  being  found  in  both.  The  rights  of  the 
legal  owners  of  slaves,  in  all  the  slaveholding  States,  are  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  by  the  local  constitutions  of  the  States  respectively, 
as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  to  which  every  minister  and  member  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States'  government  professes 
subjection,  and  pledges  himself  to  submit,  as  an  article  of  Christian  faith,  in  the 
common  creed  of  the  Church.  Domestic  slavery,  therefore,  wherever  it  exists  in  this 
country,  is  a  civil  regulation,  existing  under  the  highest  santcions  of  constitutional 
and  municipal  law  known  to  the  tribunals  of  the  country  ;  and  it  has  always  been  as- 
sumed at  the  South,  and  relied  upon  as  correct,  that  the  North,  or  non-slaveholding 
States,  had  no  right,  civil  or  moral,  to  interfere  with  relations  and  interests  thus 
secured  to  the  people  of  the  South  by  all  the  graver  forms  of  law  and  social 
order,  and  that  it  cannot  be  done  without  an  abuse  of  the  constitutional  rights 
of  citizenship.  The  people  of  the  North,  however,  have  claimed  to  think  differ- 
ently, and  have  uniformly  acted  toward  the  South  in  accordance  with  such 
opposition  of  opinion.  Precisely  in  accordance,  too,  with  this  state  of  things, 
as  it  regards  the  general  population  of  the  North  and  South,  respectively, 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  been  divided  in  opinion  and  feeling  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  since  its  organization  in  1784 :  two 
separate  and  distinct  parties  have  always  existed.  The  Southern  conferences,  in 
agreeing  to  the  main  principles  of  the  compromise  law  in  1804  and  1816,  con- 
ceded, by  express  stipulation,  their  right  to  resist  Northern  interference  in  any 
form,  upon  the  condition,  pledged  by  the  North,  that  while  the  ichole  Church,  by 
common  consent,  united  in  proper  effort  for  the  mitigation  and  final  removal  of 
the  evil  of  slavery,  the  North  was  not  to  interfere,  by  excluding  from  member- 
ship or  ministerial  office  in  the  Church  persons  owning  and  holding  slaves  in 
States  where  emancipation  is  not  practicable,  and  where  the  liberated  slave  is  not 
permitted  to  enjoy  freedom.  Such  was  the  compact  of  1804  and  1816,  finally 
agreed  to  by  the  parties  after  a  long  and  fearful  struggle,  and  such  is  the  com- 
pact now — the  proof  being  derived  from  history  and  the  testimony  of  living 
witnesses.  And  is  it  possible  to  suppose  that  the  original  purpose  and  intended 
application  of  the  law  was  not  designed  to  embrace  every  member,  minister,  order, 
and  officer  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1  Is  the  idea  of  excepted  cases 
allowable  by  fair  construction  of  the  law  1  Do  not  the  reasons  and  intendment  of 
the  law  place  it  beyond  doubt,  that  every  conceivable  case  of  alleged  misconduct 
that  can  arise,  connected  with  slavery  or  abolition,  is  to  be  subjected,  by  consent 
and  contract  of  parties,  to  the  jurisdiction  of  this  great  conservative  arrangement  1 

"  Is  there  anything  in  the  law  or  its  reasons  creating  an  exception  in  the  instance  of 
bishops  1  Would  the  South  have  entered  into  the  arrangement,  or  in  any  form  con- 
sented to  the  law,  had  it  been  intimated  by  the  North,  that  bishops  must  be  an  excep- 
tion to  the  rule  1  Are  the  virtuous  dead  of  the  North  to  be  slandered  by  the  sup- 
position, that  they  intended  to  except  bishops,  and  thus  accomplished  their  pur- 
poses, in  negotiation  with  the  South,  by  a  resort  to  deceptive  and  dishonourable 
means  ?  If  bishops  are  not  named,  no  more  are  presiding  elders,  agents,  editors 
— or,  indeed,  any  other  officers  of  the  Church,  who  are  nevertheless  included, 
mhough  the  same  rule  of  construction  would  except  them  also.  The  enactment 
was  for  an  entire  people,  east,  west,  north,  and  south.  It  was  for  the  Church, 

id  every  member  of  it — for  the  common  weal  of  the  body — and  is  therefore  uni- 
versal and  unrestricted  in  its  application  ;  and  no  possible  case  can  be  settled  upon 
any  other  principles,  without  a  direct  violation  ofcthis  law  both  in  fact  and  form. 


71 

The  law  being  what  we  have  assumed,  any  violation  of  it,  whatever  may  be  its  form 
or  mode,  is  as  certainly  a  breach  of  good  faith  as  an  infringement  of  law.  It  must 
be  seen,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  compromise  was  effected,  in  the  shape  of  a 
law,  agreed  to  by  equal  contracting  parties, — '  the  several  annual  conferences,' — 
after  a  long  and  formal  negotiation,  that  it  was  not  a  mere  legislative  enactment,  a 
simple  decree  of  a  General  Conference,  but  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  grave  com- 
pact, and  is  invested  with  all  the  sacredness  and  sanctions  of  a  solemn  treaty,  binding 
respectively  the  well-known  parties  to  its  terms  and  stipulations.  If  this  be  so — 
and  with  the  evidence  accessible  who  can  doubt  it  1 — if  this  be  so,  will  it  prove  a 
light  matter  for  this  General  Conference  to  violate  or  disregard  the  obligation  of 
this  legal  compromise,  in  the  shape  of  public  recognised  law  1  Allow  that  the  pre- 
sent parties  in  this  controversy  cannot  be  brought  to  view  the  subject  of  the  law  in 
question  in  the  same  light,  can  such  a  matter  end  in  a  mere  difference  of  opinion  as 
it  respects  the  immediate  parties  1  The  law  exists  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Church 
— the  law  is  known,  and  its  reasons  are  known,  as  equally  binding  upon  both  parties  ; 
and  what  is  the  likelihood  of  the  imputation  of  bad  faith  under  the  circumstances  1 
What  the  hazard,  that  such  imputation,  as  the  decision  of  public  opinion,  it  may  be 
from  a  thousand  tribunals,  will  be  brought  to  bear,  with  all  the  light  and  force  of 
conviction,  upon  any  act  of  this  body,  in  violation  of  the  plain  provisions  of  long- 
established  law,  originating  in  treaty,  and  based  upon  the  principles  of  conventional 
compromise  1 

"  In  proportion  to  our  love  of  truth,  of  law,  and  order,  are  we  not  called  upon  to 
pause  and  weigh  well  the  hazard,  before,  as  a  General  Conference,  we  incur  it  be- 
yond change  or  remedy  T  The  undersigned  have  long  looked  to  the  great  conserva- 
tive law  of  the  Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  as  the  only  charter 
of  connexional  union  between  the  North  and  the  South  ;  and  whenever  this  bond  of 
connexion  is  rendered  null  and  void,  no  matter  in  what  form,  or  by  what  means, 
they  are  compelled  to  regard  the  Church,  to  every  practical  purpose,  as  already 
divided  without  the  intervention  of  any  other  agency.  By  how  far,  therefore,  they 
look  upon  the  union  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  essential  to  its  prosperity, 
and  the  glory  and  success  of  American  Methodism,  by  so  far  they  are  bound  to  pro- 
test against  the  late  act  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  irregular  suspension  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  as  not  only  without  law,  but  in  direct  contravention  of  legal  stipu- 
lations known  to  be  essential  to  the  unity  of  the  Church.  And  they  are  thus  ex- 
plicit in  a  statement  of  facts,  that  the  responsibility  of  division  may  attach  where  in 
justice  it  belongs.  The  minority  making  this  Protest,  are  perfectly  satisfied  with 
the  law  of  the  Church  affecting  slavery  and  abolition.  They  ask  no  change.  They 
need — they  seek  no  indulgence  in  behalf  of  the  South.  Had  Bishop  Andrew  been 
suspended  according  to  law,  after  due  form  of  trial,  they  would  have  submitted  with- 
out remonstrance,  as  the  friends  of  law  and  order. 

"  They  except  ami  protest,  further,  against  the  lawless  procedure,  as  they  think,  in 
the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  because,  apart  from  the  injustice  done  him  and  the 
South,  by  the  act,  other  and  graver  difficulties,  necessarily  incidental  to  this  move- 
ment, come  in  for  a  share  of  attention.  The  whole  subject  is,  in  the  very  nature 
of  things,  resolved  into  a  single  original  question  :  Will  the  General  Conference 
adhere  to,  and  in  good  faith  assert  and  maintain,  the  compromise  law  of  the  Church 
on  the  vexed  question  dividing  us — or  will  it  be  found  expedient  generally,  as  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  to  lay  it  aside,  and  tread  it  under  foot  1  No  question  on 
the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  can  be  settled  until  the  General  Conference 
shall  settle  this  beyond  the  possibility  of  evasion.  In  the  present  crisis,  it  is  the 
opinion  of  the  undersigned,  that  every  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
every  member  of  this  General  Conference,  is  especially  called  upon  by  all  the 
responsibilities  of  truth  and  honour  to  declare  himself  upon  the  subject ;  and  they 
deem  it  proper,  respectfully  and  urgently,  to  make  such  call  a  part  of  this  Protest. 
When  so  much  depends  upon  it,  can  the  General  Conference,  as  the  organ  of  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Church,  remain  silent  without  incurring  the  charge  of 
trifling  both  with  its  interests  and  reputation  1  Law  always  pledges  the  public  faith 
of  the  body  ostensibly  governed  by  it  to  the  faithful  assertion  and  performance  of  its 
stipulations  ;  and  the  compromise  law  of  the  Discipline,  partaking,  as  it  does,  of  the 
nature  of  the  law  of  treaty,  and  embracing,  as  has  been  seen,  all  possible  cases, 
pledges  the  good  faith  of  every  minister  and  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  against  saying  or  doing  anything  tending  to  annul  the  force  or  thwart  the 


pnrposes  of  its  enactment.  The  only  allowable  remedy  of  those  who  object  to  the 
law,  is  to  seek  a  constitutional  change  of  the  law ;  and  in  failure,  to  submit,  or  else 
retire  from  the  Church.  All  attempts  to  resist,  evade,  or  defeat  the  objects  and 
intended  application  of  the  law,  until  dulv  revoked,  must  be  regarded  as  unjust  and 
revolutionary,  because  an  invasion  of  well-defined  conventional  right.  And  the  un- 
diTsiirned  except  to  the  course  of  the  majority  in  the  informal  prosecution  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  and  the  anomalous  quasi  suspension  it  inflicts,  as  not  only  giving  to  the 
compromise  a  construction  rendering  it  entirely  ineffective,  but  as  being  directly 
subversive  of  the  great  bond  of  union  which  has  held  the  North  and  South  together 
for  the  last  forty  years.  Turning  to  the  confederating  annual  conferences  of  1804, 
and  the  vexed  and  protracted  negotiations  which  preceded  the  General  Conference 
of  that  year,  and  finally  resulted  in  the  existing  law  of  the  Discipline,  regulating  the 
whole  subject,  and  glancing  at  nearly  half  a  million  of  Methodists,  now  in  the  South, 
who  have  come  into  the  Church  with  all  their  hopes  and  fears,  interests  and  associa- 
tions, their  property,  character,  and  influence,  reposing  in  safety  upon  the  publicly- 
pledged  faith  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  only  to  be  told  that  this  is  all  a 
dream,  that  a  part  of  what  was  pledged  was  never  intended  to  be  allowed  ;  and  that  the 
whole  is  at  all  times  subject  to  the  discretion  of  a  dominant  majority,  claiming,  in 
matter  of  ri^ht.  to  be  without  and  above  law,  competent  not  merely  to  make  all 
rules  and  regulations  for  the  proper  government  of  the  Church,  but  to  govern  the 
Church  without  rule  or  regulation,  and  punish  and  degrade  without  even  the  alleged 
infringement  of  law,  or  the  form  of  trial,  if  it  be  thought  expedient,  presents  a  state 
of  things  filling  the  undersigned  with  alarm  and  dismay.  Such  views  and  facts, 
without  adducing  others,  will,  perhaps,  be  sufficient  to  show  the  first  and  principal 
ground  occupied  by  the  minority  in  the  Protest.  They  cannot  resist  the  con- 
viction that  the  majority  have  failed  to  redeem  the  pledge  of  public  law  given  to  the 
Church  and  the  world  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  2.  The  undersigned  are  aware  that  it  is  affirmed  by  some  of  the  majority,  but 
meanwhile  denied  by  others,  and  thus  a  mooted,  unsettled  question  among  them- 
selves, that  the  resolution  censuring  and  virtually  suspending  Bishop  Andrew,  as 
understood  by  the  minority,  is  mere  matter  of  advice  or  recommendation  ;  but  so  far 
from  advising  or  recommending  anything,  the  language  of  the  resolution,  by  fair  and 
necessary  construction,  is  imperative  and  mandatory  in  form,  and,  unqualified  by 
anything  in  the  resolution  itself,  or  in  the  preamble  explaining  it,  conveys  the  idea 
plainly  and  most  explicitly,  that  it  is  the  judgment  and  will  of  the  Conference  that 
Bishop  Andrew  shall  cease  to  exercise  the  office  of  bishop  until  he  shall  cease  to  be 
the  owner  of  slaves.  '  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  conference  that  he 
desist.'  That  is,  having  rendered  himself  unacceptable  to  the  majority,  it  is  their 
judgment  that  he  retire  from  the  bench  of  bishops  and  their  field  of  action. 

"No  idea  of  request,  advice,  or  recommendation,  is  conveyed  by  the  language  of 
the  preamble  or  resolution,  and  the  recent  avowal  of  an  intention  to  advise  is,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  undersigned,  disowned  by  the  very  terms  in  which,  it  is  said, 
the  adticc  was  given.  The  whole  argument  of  the  majority,  during  a  debate  of 
twelve  days,  turned  upon  the  right  of  the  Conference  to  displace  Bishop  Andrew 
without  resort  to  formal  trial.  No  one  questioned  the  legal  right  of  the  Conference 
to  advise  ;  and  if  this  only  was  intended,  why  the  protracted  debate  upon  the  sub- 
ject 1  But  further  :  a  resolution  respectfully  and  affectionately  requesting  the  bishop 
to  resign  had  been  laid  aside,  to  entertain  the  substitute  under  notice  ;  a  motion,  too, 
to  declare  the  resolution  advisory  was  promptly  rejected  by  the  majority;  and  in 
view  of  all  these  facts,  and  the  entire  proceedings  of  the  majority  in  the  case,  the 
undersigned  have  been  compelled  to  consider  the  resolution  as  a  mandatory  judg- 
ment, to  the  effect  that  Bishop  Andrew  desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  episcopal 
functions.  If  the  majority  have  been  misunderstood,  the  language  of  their  own  resolu- 
tion, and  the  position  they  occupied  in  debate,  have  led  to  the  misconception  ;  and 
truth  and  honour,  not  less  than  a  most  unfortunate  use  of  language,  require  that  they 
explain  themselves. 

"  3.  We  except  to  the  act  of  the  majority,  because  it  is  assumed  that  conscience 
and  principle  are  involved,  and  require  the  act  complained  of,  as  expedient  and  ne- 
cessary under  the  circumstances.  Bishop  Andrew  being  protected  by  the  law  of 
the  Church,  having  cognizance  of  all  offences  connected  with  slavery,  such  connex- 
ion in  his  case,  in  the  judgment  of  all  jurisprudence,  can  only  be  wrong  in  the  pro- 
portion that  the  law  is  bad  and  defective.  It  is  not  conceived  by  the  minority  how 


73 

conscience  and  principle  can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  Bishop  Andrew,  and  not  upon 
the  law  and  the  Church  having  such  law.  They  are  obliged  to  believe  that  the  law 
and  the  source  from  which  it  emanates  must  become  the  object  of  exception  and  cen- 
sure before  Bishop  Andrew,  who  has  not  offended  against  either,  unless  the  Church 
is  against  the  law,  can  be  subjected  to  trial,  at  the  bar  of  the  conscience  and  princi- 
ples of  men  who  profess  subjection  and  approval,  in  the  instance  both  of  the  law  and 
the  Church. 

"  The  undersigned  can  never  consent,  while  we  have  a  plain  law,  obviously  cover- 
ing an  assumed  offence,  that  the  offence  shall  be  taken,  under  plea  of  principle,  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  law,  and  be  resubjected  to  the  conflicting  opinions  and  passions 
which  originally  led  to  a  resort  to  law,  as  the  only  safe  standard  of  judgment.  They 
do  not  understand  how  conscience  and  principle  can  attach  grave  blame  to  action 
not  disapproved  by  the  law — express  law  too,  made  and  provided  in  the  case — with- 
out extending  condemnation  to  the  law  itself,  and  the  body  from  which  it  proceeds. 
The  Church  can  hardly  be  supposed  to  have  settled  policy  and  invariable  custom,  in 
contravention  of  law;  the  avowal  of  such  custom  and  policy,  therefore,  excluding  from 
the  episcopacy  any  and  every  man,  in  any  way  connected  with  slavery,  is  mere 
assumption.  No  contract,  agreement,  decree,  or  purpose  of  this  kind,  is  of  record, 
or  ever  existed.  No  such  exaction,  in  terms  or  by  implication,  was  ever  made  by 
the  North,  or  conceded  by  the  South.  No  conventional  understanding  ever  existed 
to  this  effect,  so  far  as  the  South  is  concerned,  or  has  been  informed.  That  it  has 
long,  perhaps  always,  been  the  purpose  of  the  North,  not  to  elect  a  slaveholder  to  the 
office  of  bishop,  is  admitted.  But  as  no  law  gave  countenance  to  anything  of  the 
kind,  the  South  regarded  it  as  a  mere  matter  of  social  injustice,  and  was  not  disposed 
to  complain.  The  North  has  always  found  its  security  in  numbers,  and  the  untram- 
melled right  of  suffrage,  and  to  this  the  South  has  not  objected.  The  assumption, 
however,  is  entirely  different,  and  is  not  admitted  by  the  South,  but  is  plainly  nega- 
tived by  the  law  and  language  of  the  Discipline,  as  explained  by  authority  of  the 
General  Conference. 

"  No  such  concession,  beyond  peaceable  submission  to  the  right  of  suffrage,  exer- 
cised by  the  majority,  will  ever  be  submitted  to  by  the  South,  as  it  would  amount  to 
denial  of  equal  abstract  right,  and  a  disfranchisement  of  the  Southern  ministry,  and 
could  not  be  submitted  to  without  injury  and  degradation.  If,  then,  the  North  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  negative  right  conceded  to  the  South  by  law  in  this  matter,  the 
minority  would  be  glad  to  know  what  principle  or  policy  is  likely  to  introduce  beyond 
the  existing  provisions  of  law.  As  the  contingency  which  has  occasioned  the  diffi- 
culty in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  to  which  every  Southern  minister  is  liable 
at  any  time,  does  not,  and  cannot  fall  under  the  condemnation  of  existing  law,  and  he 
cannot  be  punished,  nor  yet  subjected  to  any  official  disability,  without  an  abuse  of 
both  right  and  power,  on  the  part  of  this  General  Conference,  the  minority  are  com- 
pelled to  think  that  the  majority  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  the  consciousness  and  de- 
claration, that  they  are  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  contingency,  and  thus,  at  least, 
allow  Bishop  Andrew  the  benefit  of  their  own  legislation,  until  they  see  proper  to 
change  it.  This  attempt  by  the  majority  to  protect  a  lawless  prosecution  from 
merited  rebuke,  by  an  appeal  to  conscience  and  principle,  condemning  Bishop  An- 
drew, while  the  law  and  the  Church,  shielding  him  from  the  assault,  are  not  object- 
ed to,  is  looked  upon  by  the  minority  as  a  species  of  moral,  we  will  not  say  legal, 
casuistry,  utterly  subversive  of  all  the  principles  of  order  and  good  government. 

"  4.  The  act  of  the  majority  was  ostensibly  resorted  to,  because,  as  alleged,  the 
Church  in  the  Middle  and  Northern  conferences  will  not  submit  to  any,  the  slightest 
connexion  with  slavery.  But  if  connexion  with  slavery  is  ruinous  to  the  Church  in 
the  North,  that  ruin  is  already  wrought.  Who  does  not  know  that  the  very  Disci- 
pline, laws,  and  legislation  of  the  Church  necessarily  connect  us  all  with  slavery! 
All  our  provisional  legislation  on  the  subject  has  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that 
slavery  is  an  element  of  society — a  principle  of  action — a  household  reality  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States.  It  is  part  and  parcel  of  the 
economy  of  American  Methodism,  in  every  subjective  sense.  It  has  given  birth  to 
law  and  right,  conventional  arrangements,  numerous  missions,  and  official  trusts. 
Every  bishop,  every  minister,  every  member  of  the  Church  is  of  necessity  connected 
with  slavery.  Each  is  brother  and  co-member,  both  with  slave  and  master,  by  the 
very  laws  and  organization  of  the  Church. 

"  If,  then,  connexion  with  slavery  is  so  disastrous,  the  only  remedy  is  to  purify 


74 

the  Church  by  reorganization,  or  get  out  of  it  as  soon  as  possible.  And  would  not 
this  aversion  to  slavery — would  not  conscience  and  principle,  so  much  plead  in  this 
controversy — appear  much  more  consistent  in  every  view  of  the  subject,  in  striking 
at  the  root  of  the  evil,  in  the  organic  structure  of  the  Church,  than  in  seeking  its 
personification  in  Bishop  Andrew,  protected  although  he  be  by  the  law,  and  proceed- 
ing to  punish  him,  by  way  of  calling  off  attention  from  the  known  toleration  of  the 
same  thing,  in  other  aspects  and  relations1 

li  Impelled  by  conscience  and  principle  to  the  illegal  arrest  of  a  bishop,  because 
he  has  incidentally,  by  bequest,  inheritance,  and  marriage,  come  into  possession  of 
slave  property,  in  no  instance  intending  to  possess  himself  of  such  property,  how 
long  will  conscience  and  principle  leave  other  ministers,  or  even  lay  members,  undis- 
turbod,  who  may  happen  to  be  in  the  same  category  with  Bishop  Andrew !  Will 
assurances  be  given  that  the  lawlessness  of  expediency,  controlled,  as  in  such  case 
it  must  be,  by  prejudice  and  passion,  will  extend  no  further — that  there  shall  be  no 
further  curtailment  of  right  as  it  regards  the  Southern  ministry'?  Yet  what  is  the 
security  of  the  South  in  the  easel  Is  the  public  faith  of  this  body,  as  instanced  in 
the  recent  violations  of  the  compromise  law,  to  be  relied  upon  as  the  guarantee  for 
the  redemption  of  the  pledge"!  What  would  such  pledge  or  assurance  be  but  to  re- 
mind the  South  that  any  departure  at  all  from  the  great  conservative  pledge  of  law, 
to  which  we  appeal,  was  much  more  effectually  guarded  against  originally,  than  it  is 
possible  to  guard  against  any  subsequent  infringement,  and  to  make  the  South  feel 
further  that  disappointment  in  the  first  instance  must  compel  distrust  with  regard  to 
the  future  1  The  Church  having  specific  law  on  the  subject,  all  questions  involving 
slavery  must  inevitably,  by  intention  of  law,  come  within  the  purview  of  such  special 
provision,  and  cannot  be  judged  of  by  any  other  law  or  standard,  without  a  most  dar- 
ing departure  from  all  the  rules  and  sobrieties  of  judicial  procedure,  and  the  under- 
signed accordingly  except  to  the  action  of  the  majority  in  relation  to  Bishop  Andrew, 
as  not  only  without  sanction  of  law,  but  in  conflict  with  rights  created  by  law. 

"  5.  As  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  now  organized,  and  according  to  its  or- 
ganization since  1784,  the  episcopacy  is  a  co-ordinate  branch,  the  executive  depart- 
ment proper  of  the  government.  A  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  not 
a  mere  creature — is  in  no  prominent  sense  an  officer  of  the  General  Conference. 
The  General  Conference,  as  such,  cannot  constitute  a  bishop.  It  is  true  the  annual 
conferences  select  the  bishops  of  the  Church,  by  the  suffrage  of  their  delegates,  in 
General  Conference  assembled ;  but  the  General  Conference,  in  its  capacity  of  a 
representative  body  or  any  other  in  which  it  exists,  does  not  possess  the  power  of 
ordination,  without  which  a  bishop  cannot  be  constituted. 

"  The  bishops  are  beyond  a  doubt  an  integral  constituent  part  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, made  such  by  law  and  the  constitution ;  and  because  elected  by  the  General 
Conference,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  subject  to  the  will  of  that  body,  except 
in  conformity  with  legal  right  and  the  provisions  of  law,  in  the  premises.  In  this 
sense,  and  so  viewed,  they  are  subject  to  the  General  Conference,  and  this  is  suffi- 
cient limitation  of  their  power,  unless  the  government  itself  is  to  be  considered  irre- 
gular and  unbalanced  in  the  co-ordinate  relations  of  its  parts.  In  a  sense  by  no 
means  unimportant  the  General  Conference  is  as  much  the  creature  of  the  episco- 
pacy, as  the  bishops  are  the  creatures  of  the  General  Conference.  Constitutionally 
the  bishops  alone  have  the  right  to  fix  the  time  of  holding  the  annual  conferences, 
and  should  they  refuse  or  neglect  to  do  so,  no  annual  conference  could  meet,  accord- 
ing to  law,  and,  by  consequence,  no  delegates  could  be  chosen,  and  no  General  Con- 
ference could  be  chosen,  or  even  exist.  And  because  this  is  so,  what  would  be 
thought  of  the  impertinent  pretension,  should  the  episcopacy  claim  that  the  General 
Conference  is  the  mere  creature  of  their  will  1  As  executive  officers  as  well  as  pasto- 
ral overseers,  the  bishops  belong  to  the  Church  as  such,  and  not  to  the  General  Con- 
ference as  one  of  its  councils  or  organs  of  action  merely. 

"  The  General  Conference  is  in  no  sense  the  Church,  not  even  representatively. 
It  is  merely  the  representative  organ  of  the  Church,  with  limited  powers  to  do  its 
business,  in  the  discharge  of  a  delegated  trust. 

"  Because  bishops  are  in  part  constituted  by  the  General  Conference,  the  power  of 
removal  does  not  follow.  Episcopacy  even  in  the  Methodist  Church  is  not  a  mere 
appointment  to  labour.  It  is  an  official  consecrated  station,  under  the  protection  of 
law,  and  can  only  be  dangerous  as  the  law  is  bad,  or  the  Church  corrupt.  The  power 
to  appoint  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  power  to  remove  ;  and  when  the  appoint- 


75 

ing  power  is  derivative,  as  in  the  case  of  the  General  Conference,  the  power  of  re- 
moval does  not  accrue  at  all,  unless  by  consent  of  the  co-ordinate  branches  of  the 
government,  expressed  by  law,  made  and  provided  in  the  case.  When  the  legislature 
of  a  State,  to  appeal  to  analogy  for  illustration,  appoints  a  judge  or  senator  in 
congress,  does  the  judge  or  senator  thereby  become  the  officer  or  creature  of  the 
legislature,  or  is  he  the  officer  or  senatorial  representative  of  the  State,  of  which  the 
legislature  is  the  mere  organ  1  And  does  the  power  of  removal  follow  that  of  appoint- 
ment 1  The  answer  is  negative,  in  both  cases,  and  applies  equally  to  the  bishops  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who,  instead  of  being  the  officers  and  creatures  of 
the  General  Conference,  are  de  facto  the  officers  and  servants  of  the  Church,  chosen 
by  the  General  Conference,  as  its  organ  of  action,  and  no  right  of  removal  accrues, 
except  as  they  fail  to  accomplish  the  aims  of  the  Church  in  their  appointment,  and 
then  only  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  law.  But  when  a  bishop  is  suspended, 
or  informed  that  it  is  the  wish  or  will  of  the  General  Conference  that  he  cease  to 
perform  the  functions  of  bishop,  for  doing  what  the  law  of  the  same  body  allows  him 
to  do,  and  of  course  without  incurring  the  hazard  of  punishment,  or  even  blame,  then 
the  whole  procedure  becomes  an  outrage  upon  justice,  as  well  as  law. 

"  The  assumption  of  power  by  the  General  Conference  beyond  the  warrant  of  law, 
to  which  we  object,  and  against  which  we  protest,  will  lead,  if  carried  into  practice, 
to  a  direct  violation  of  one  of  the  restrictive  rales  of  the  constitution.  Suppose  it 
had  been  the  '  sense '  of  this  General  Conference,  when  the  late  communication  from 
the  bishops  was  respectfully  submitted  to  the  Conference,  that  such  communication 
was  an  interference  with  their  rights  and  duties — an  attempt  to  tamper  with  the 
purity  and  independence,  and  therefore  an  outrage  upon  the  claims  and  dignity  of  the 
Conference  not  to  be  borne  with.  And  proceeding  a  step  further,  suppose  it  had 
been  the  '  sense '  of  the  Conference  that  they  all  desist  from  performing  the  functions 
of  bishops  until  the  '  impediment '  of  such  offence  had  been  removed — assume  this, 
{and,  so  far  as  mere  law  is  concerned,  no  law  being  violated  in  either  case,  it  was 
just  as  likely  as  the  movement  against  Bishop  Andrew,)  and  had  it  taken  place,  what 
had  become  of  the  general  superintendency  1  If  a  bishop  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  may,  without  law,  and  at  the  instance  of  mere  party  expediency,  be  sus- 
pended from  the  exercise  of  the  appropriate  functions  of  his  office,  for  one  act,  he 
may  for  another.  Admit  this  doctrine,  and  by  what  tenure  do  the  bishops  hold  office  1 
One  thing  is  certain,  whatever  other  tenure  there  may  be,  they  do  not  hold  office 
according  to  law. 

"  The  provisions  of  law  and  the  faithful  performance  of  duty,  upon  this  theory  of 
official  tenure,  afford  no  security.  Admit  this  claim  of  absolutism,  as  regards  right 
and  powers  on  the  part  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  are  slaves,  and  the  men  constituting  this  body  their  masters  and 
holders.  They  are  in  office  only  at  the  discretion  of  a  majority  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, without  the  restraints  or  protection  of  law.  Both  the  law  and  themselves 
are  liable  and  likely  at  any  time  to  be  overborne  and  trampled  upon  together,  as  ex- 
emplified in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  If  the  doctrine  against  which  we  protest 
be  admitted,  the  episcopal  office  is,  at  best,  but  a  quadrennial  term  of  service,  and 
the  undersigned  are  compelled  to  think  that  a  man  who  would  remain  a  bishop,  or 
allow  himself  to  be  made  one,  under  such  circumstances,  '  desires  a  good  work,'  and 
is  prepared  for  self-sacrifice,  quite  beyond  the  comprehension  of  ordinary  piety. 

''As  it  regards  Bishop  Andrew,  if  it  shall  be  made  to  appear  that  the  action  in  his 
case  was  intended  only  to  advise  and  request  him  to  desist  from  his  office,  it  does  not 
in  any  way  affect  the  real  or  relative  character  of  the  movement.  When  a  body 
claiming  the  right  to  compel,  asks  the  resignation  of  an  officer,  the  request  is  to  all 
official  and  moral  purposes  compulsory,  as  it  loads  the  officer  with  disability,  and 
gives  notice  of  assumed  unworthiness,  if  not  criminality.  The  request  has  all  the 
force  of  a  mandate,  inasmuch  as  the  officer  is  by  such  request  compelled  either  to 
resign  or  remain  in  office  contrary  to  the  known  will  of  the  majority.  A  simple  re- 
quest, therefore,  under  the  circumstances  supposed,  carries  with  it  all  the  force  of  a 
decree,  and  is  so  understood,  it  is  believed,  by  all  the  world. 

"  To  request  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  and  rela- 
tions of  the  case,  was,  in  the  judgment  of  the  minority,  to  punish  and  degrade  him; 
and  they  maintain  that  the  whole  movement  was  without  authority  of  law,  is  hence 
of  necessity  null  and  void,  and  therefore  not  binding  upon  Bishop  Andrew,  or  the 
minority  protesting  against  it. 


76 

"6.  We  protest  against  the  art  of  the  majority,  instructing  Bishop  Andrew  to 
desist  from  the  exercise  of  his  office,  not  merely  on  account  of  the  injustice  and  evil 
connecting  with  the  act  itself,  but  because  the  act  must  be  understood  as  the  expo- 
nent of  principles  and  purposes,  as  it  regards  the  union  of  the  North  and  South  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  well-nigh  destroying  all  hope  o/  its  perpetuity.  The 
true  position  of  the  parties  in  relation  to  a  long-existing  conventional  arrangement, 
on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  has  been  fully  under  notice  ;  and  when  men 
of  years  and  wisdom,  experience  and  learning — men  of  no  common  weight  of  charac- 
ter, and  with  a  well-earned  aristocracy  of  Church  influence  thrown  about  them,  assume 
and  declare,  in  action  as  well  as  debate,  that  what  a  plain  law  of  the  Church — the 
only  law  applicable  in  the  case — sustained  and  enforced,  too,  by  an  explanatory 
decree  of  this  body,  at  a  previous  session — decides  shall  not  be  a  disqualification  for 
office,  in  any  grade  in  the  ministry, — when  such  men,  the  law  and  decision  of  the 
General  Conference  notwithstanding,  are  heard  declaring  that  what  law  provides  for 
and  protects  nevertheless  ahcays  has  been  and  always  shall  be  a  disqualification,  what 
further  evidence  is  wanting  to  show  that  the  compromise  basis  of  union,  from  which 
the  South  has  never  swerved,  has  been  abandoned  both  by  the  Northern  and  Middle 
Conferences,  with  a  few  exceptions  in  the  latter,  and  that  principles  and  purposes 
are  entertained  by  the  majority,  driving  the  South  to  extreme  action,  in  defence  both 
of  their  rights  and  reputation  1  And  how  far  the  long  train  of  eventful  sequences, 
attendant  upon  the  threatened  result  of  division,  may  be  traceable  to  the  Northern 
and  Middle  Conferences,  by  the  issue  thus  provoked,  is  a  question  to  be  settled  not 
by  us,  but  by  our  contemporaries  and  posterity. 

"  It  is  matter  of  history,  with  regard  to  the  past,  and  will  not  be  questioned,  that 
now,  as  formerly,  the  South  is  upon  the  basis  of  the  Discipline,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  The  minority  believe  it  equally  certain  that  this  is  not  true  with  regard  to 
the  North  proper  especially.  In  view,  then,  of  the  unity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  which  party  has  been,  in  equity,  entitled  to  the  sympathy  and  protection  of 
the  Middle  and  umpire  conferences'! — those  who  through  good  and  evil  report  have  kept 
good  faith  and  adhered  to  law,  or  those  whose  opinions  and  purposes  have  led  them  to 
seek  a  state  of  things  in  advance  of  law,  and  thus  dishonour  its  forms  and  sanctions! 

"  7.  In  proportion  as  the  minority  appreciate  and  cling  to  the  unity  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  they  are  bound,  further,  to  except  to  the  position  of  the  majority, 
in  this  controversy.  Allow  that  Bishop  Andrew,  without  however  any  infringement 
of  law,  is,  on  account  of  his  connexion  with  slavery,  unacceptable  in  the  Northern 
conferences.  It  is  equally  known  to  the  majority  that  any  bishop  of  the  Church, 
either  violating,  or  submitting  to  a  violation  of  the  compromise  charter  of  union  be- 
tween the  North  and  the  South,  without  proper  and  public  remonstrance,  cannot 
be  acceptable  in  the  South,  and  need  not  appear  there.  By  pressing  the  issue  in 
question,  therefore,  the  majority  virtually  dissolve  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  because  in  every  constitutional  aspect  it  is  sundered  by  so  crip- 
pling a  co-ordinate  branch  of  it  as  to  destroy  the  itinerant  general  superintendency 
altogether.  Whenever  it  is  clearly  ascertained  that  the  compromise  law  of  the 
Church,  regulating  slavery  and  abolition,  is  abandoned,  every  bishop,  each  of  the 
venerable  and  excellent  men  who  now  adorn  the  Church  and  its  councils,  ceases  to 
be  a  general  superintendent  :  the  law  of  union,  the  principle  of  gravitation,  binding 
us  together,  is  dissolved,  and  the  general  superintendency  cf  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  no  more  ! 

"  8.  The  South  have  not  been  led  thus  to  protest  merely  because  of  the  treatment 
received  by  Bishop  Andrew,  or  the  kindred  action  of  this  body  in  other  matters.  The 
abandonment  of  the  compromise — the  official  refusal  by  the  majority,  as  we  have 
understood  them,  to  abide  the  arbitrament  of  law — is  their  principal  ground  of  com- 
plaint and  remonstrance.  If  the  minority  have  not  entirely  misunderstood  the  ma- 
jority, the  abolition  and  anti-slavery  principles  of  the  North  will  no  longer  allow 
them  to  submit  to  the  law  of  the  Discipline  on  the  general  subject  of  slavery  and 
abolition  ;  and  if  this  be  so,  if  the  compromise  law  be  either  repealed  or  allowed  to 
remain  a  dead  letter,  the  South  cannot  submit,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  division  is 
already  dated.  And  should  the  exigent  circumstances  in  which  the  minority  find 
themselves  placed,  by  the  facts  and  developments  alluded  to  in  this  remonstrance, 
render  it  finally  necessary  that  the  Southern  conferences  should  have  a  separate,  inde- 
pcTident  existence,  it  is  hoped  that  the  character  and  services  of  the  minority,  to- 
gether with  the  numbers  and  claims  of  the  ministry  and  membership  of  the  portion 


77 

of  the  Church  represented  by  them,  not  less  than  similar  reasons  and  considerations 
on  the  part  of  the  Northern  and  Middle  conferences,  will  suggest  the  high  moral 
fitness  of  meeting  this  great  emergency  with  strong  and  steady  purpose  to  do  justice 
to  all  concerned.  And  it  is  believed  that,  approaching  the  subject  in  this  way,  it 
will  be  found  practicable  to  devise  and  adopt  such  measures  and  arrangements,  pre- 
sent and  prospective,  as  will  secure  an  amicable  division  of  the  Church  upon  the 
broad  principles  of  right  and  equity,  and  destined  to  result  in  the  common  good 
of  the  great  body  of  ministers  and  members  found  on  either  side  the  line  of  sepa- 
ration." 

MR.  WOOD, — There  was  a  reply  to  that  Protest,  which  I  suppose  is  properly  our 
evidence,  but  I  think  there  is  great  propriety  in  having  them  read  together  ;  and  the 
court  will  then  have  the  whole  ecclesiastical  argument  before  it. 

MR.  LORD, — I  will  agree  to  that ;  but  there  is  a  short  letter  which  was  presented 
to  the  Conference  from  Dr.  Bascom,  which  I  will  read  first  in  this  connexion. 

JCDGE  NELSON, — I  think  the  counsel  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiffs  had  better  go  on, 
without  mixing  up  the  case  on  the  other  side  with  that  on  which  he  means  to  rely. 

MR.  LORD, — This  would  not  be  so  mixing  it  up,  may  it  please  your  Honours. 
This  paper  will  tend  to  show  how  things  then  stood  at  that  Conference,  and  perhaps  it 
is  just  that  it  should  now  be  read — it  certainly  will  be  convenient — that  your  Honours 
may  see  the  feeling  which  prevailed  on  both  sides  before  the  separation  was  effected. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — We  do  not  object. 

MR.  LORD, — If  your  Honours  please,  I  will  first  read  Dr.  Bascom's  letter  : — 

" '  Rev.  Bishops  Soule,  Hedding,  Waugh,  and  Morris  : 

" '  MY  DEAR  BRETHREN, — That  part  of  the  Protest,  presented  to  the  General 
Conference  yesterday,  which  relates  to  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  maintaining  the  compromise  law  of  the  Discipline,  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
and,  abolition,  was  intended  as  the  declaration  of  a  principle,  to  which  it  is  the  purpose 
of  the  South  to  adhere  ;  but  was  not  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  that  any  member 
of  the  existing  bench  of  bishops  was  in  any  way  delinquent  with  regard  to  the  law  of 
the  Church  in  question.  If  any  such  impression  has  been  made,  in  any  quarter,  it  is 
deeply  regretted.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  writers  and  signers  of  the  Protest  alluded 
to,  that  the  bishops  addressed  in  this  communication  have,  at  different  times,  and  in 
different  forms,  sufficiently  declared  themselves  on  the  subject  under  notice  ;  and  so 
far  from  intending  to  impugn  the  bishops  in  any  way,  the  minority  signing  the  Pro- 
test are  ready  at  all  times  to  endorse  the  purity  and  impartiality  with  which  they  have 
maintained  and  enforced  the  law  and  doctrine  of  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  abolition. 

"  '  In  behalf  of  the  Southern  delegations  signing  the  Protest,  very  truly  and  re- 
spectfully, H.  B.  BASCOM. 

"  '  New-York,  June  7,  1844.'  " 

The  REV.  DR.  PECK  then  read  the  following,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Fancher : — 

"  REPLY  TO  THE  PROTEST. 
"  Report  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  Statement  of  the  Facts  connected  with 

the  Proceedings  in  the  Case  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

"The  committee  appointed  to  prepare  a  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  and  to  examine  the  Protest  of  the  minority,  regret  that  the  circum- 
stances under  which  they  have  been  compelled  to  act  have  prevented  their  preparing 
so  complete  a  report  as  the  importance  of  the  subject  demands.  The  Pr  test  was 
not  placed  under  their  command  until  Friday  afternoon,  and  immediately  afterward 
two  of  the  original  committee  had  to  withdraw,  one  of  them  being  ill,  and  the  other 


78 

having  been  elected  bishop  :  nor  were  their  places  supplied  until  Saturday  evening. 
••!  acres,  and  amid  the  pressure  of  important  Conference  busi- 
ness, ij,at  jh, .  required  to  prepare  a  document  in  relation  to  some  of  the 
;>ortant  questions  that  have  ever  engaged  the  attention  of  the  Church.     It  is 
:  hat  the  following  statement  of  law  and  facts  will  be  a  sufficient 
•  i  the  Protest  which  has  been  referred  to  them. 

.-i<rs  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew 
were  not  judicial,  its  decision  has  gone  forth  to  the  public  unaccompanied  by  the 
reasons  and  facts  upon  which  this  action  was  founded.  This  deficiency  is  but  par- 
ipplied  by  the  published  reports  of  the  debate  on  the  subject.  The  speakers 
who  advocated  the  resolution  were  restrained  by  a  praiseworthy  delicacy  from  all 
avoidable  allusions  which  might  give  pain  to  the  respected  individual  concerned,  or 
awaken  unpleasant  emotions  in  any  quarter.  It  is  but  natural  that,  under  these 
circumstances,  some  misunderstanding  should  prevail  as  to  the  merits  of  the  case. 
The  following  statement,  it  is  believed,  contains  nothing,  at  least  so  far  as  facts  are 
concerned,  wnich  will  not  be  cheerfully  confirmed  by  all  parties,  and  will  throw  light 
upon  the  true  position  of  the  authors  of  the  Protest. 

"  From  the  first  institution  of  the  episcopacy  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
no  slaveholder  has  been  elected  to  that  dignity,  though,  in  several  instances,  candi- 
dates, otherwise  eminently  fitted  for  the  station,  have  failed  of  success  solely  on 
account  of  this  impediment.  Since  the  period  referred  to,  nine  bishops  have  been 
elected,  who  were  natives  of  the  United  States.  Of  these  only  three  have  been 
Northern  men,  while  six  were  natives  of  slaveholding  States.  Not  one,  however, 
was  a  slaveholder ;  a  remarkable  fact,  which  shows  very  clearly,  that  while  much 
more  than  their  just  claim  has  been  conceded  to  the  slaveholding  portions  of  the 
Church,  a  decided  and  uniform  repugnance  has,  from  the  first,  been  felt  and  mani- 
fested to  the  occupancy  of  that  high  office  by  a  slaveholder. 

"  It  is  known  and  acknowledged  by  all  Southern  brethren,  that  Bishop  Andrew 
was  nominated  by  the  delegates  from  the  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  Conferences, 
as  a  Southern  candidate  for  whom  Northern  men  might  vote,  without  doing  violence 
to  their  principles,  as  he  was  no  slaveholder.  Bishop  Andrew  himself  perfectly  un- 
derstood the  ground  of  his  election,  and  often  said  that  he  was  indebted  to  his  poverty 
for  his  promotion.  Since  the  year  1832,  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  Church,  as 
well  as  in  the  whole  civilized  world,  has  constantly  and  rapidly  gained  ground  ;  and 
within  the  last  year  or  two  it  has  been  roused  to  a  special  and  most  earnest  opposi- 
tion to  the  introduction  of  a  slaveholder  into  the  episcopal  office — an  event  which 
many  were  led  to  fear,  by  certain  intimations  published  in  the  Southern  Christian 
Advocate,  the  Richmond  Christian  Advocate,  and  perhaps  some  other  Methodist 
periodicals.  This  opposition  produced  the  profoundest  anxiety  through  most  of  the 
non-slaveholding  conferences.  The  subject  was  discussed  everywhere,  and  the 
dreaded  event  universally  deprecated  as  the  most  fearful  calamity  that  ever  threat- 
ened the  Church.  Many  conferences  instructed  their  delegates  to  use  all  possible 
means  to  avert  such  an  evil.  Other  conferences,  and  many  thousand  laymen,  sent 
up  petitions  and  memorials  to  the  same  effect  to  the  present  General  Conference. 
Such  was  the  state  of  sentiment  and  of  apprehension  in  the  Northern  portion  of  the 
Church,  when  the  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  learned,  on  reaching  this 
city,  that  Bishop  Andrew  had  become  a  slaveholder.  The  profound  grief,  the  utter 
dismay,  which  was  produced  by  this  astounding  intelligence,  can  be  fully  appreciated 
only  by  those  who  have  participated  in  the  distressing  scenes  which  have  since  been 
enacted  in  the  General  Conference. 

"  When  the  first  emotions  of  surprise  and  sorrow  had  so  far  subsided  as  to  allow 
of  sober  thought  and  inquiry,  it  was  ascertained  that  Bishop  Andrew  had  been  a 
slaveholder  for  several  years.  Soon  after  his  election  to  the  episcopacy,  a  lady  of 
Augusta  bequeathed  him  a  female  slave,  on  condition  that  she  should  be  sent  to 
Liberia  at  nineteen  years  of  age,  if  her  consent  to  emigrate  could  be  obtained — 
otherwise  she  was  to  be  made  as  free  as  the  laws  of  Georgia  would  permit.  She 
refused  to  emigrate,  has  since  married,  and  is  now  enjoying  all  the  privileges  pro- 
vided for  in  the  will  of  her  former  mistress  : — she  is,  and  must  be,  a  slave — she  and 
:hildren— and  liable  to  all  that  may  befall  slaves.  Another  slave  Bishop  An- 
drew has  inherited  from  the  mother  of  his  former  wife,  and  by  his  recent  marriage 
he  has  become  the  owner  of  (it  was  said  on  the  floor  of  the  General  Conference) 
fourteen  or  fifteen  more.  These  belonged  to  Mrs.  Andrew  in  her  own  right  before 


79 

her  marriage.  That  act,  according  to  the  laws  of  Georgia,  made  them  the  property 
of  Bishop  Andrew,  to  keep  or  dispose  of  as  he  pleased.  He  conveyed  them  to  a 
trustee,  for  the  joint  use  of  himself  and  wife,  of  whom  the  survivor  is  to  be  the  sole 
owner.  This  conveyance  was  made  for  the  security  of  Mrs.  Andrew,  and  with  no 
view  either  to  satisfy  or  to  mislead  the  opinions  of  the  Northern  Church.  So  much, 
at  least,  Bishop  Andrew  was  understood  to  say  to  the  Conference.  His  known  in- 
tegrity forbids  the  suspicion  that  he  would  attempt  to  disguise  the  real  character  of 
the  transaction  ;  and  the  fact  that  the  earnings  of  the  slaves,  as  well  as  the  rever- 
sionary title  to  them,  are  his,  demonstrates  that  this  arrangement  was  not  made  with 
any  view  to  satisfy  the  well-known  sentiments  of  the  Church  against  a  slaveholding 
bishop.  It  is  manifest  from  this  statement,  which  is  believed  to  be  strictly  correct, 
that  Bishop  Andrew's  connexion  with  slavery  is  not,  as  the  Protest  intimates, 
merely  an  "assumption,"  but  that  he  is  the  owner  of  slaves,  in  the  full  and  proper 
sense  of  that  term.  His  title  was  acquired  by  bequest,  by  inheritance,  and  by  mar- 
riage, which  are  by  far  the  most  common  grounds  of  ownership  in  slaves.  All  the 
usual  and  necessary  conditions  of  slavery  have  then-  fulfilment  in  the  relation  of  these 
persons  to  Bishop  Andrew.  Their  labour  and  their  earnings  are  subject  to  his  con- 
trol, and  inure  to  his  benefit  and  that  of  his  family.  They  are  now  liable,  or  they  may 
be  hereafter,  to  be  sold  ;  they  and  their  offspring  are  doomed,  as  the  case  now  stands, 
to  a  bondage  that  is  perpetual,  and  they  are  liable  and  likely  to  descend  to  his  heirs. 
Beyond  all  reasonable  doubt,  the  condition  of  Bishop  Andrew's  slaves  will  be 
attended,  while  he  lives,  with  all  the  alleviations — and  these  are  many  and  great — 
which  a  very  benevolent  and  Christian  master  can  provide.  Still  it  must  be  slavery. 
In  the  view  of  the  law  of  the  land,  and  of  the  law  of  the  Discipline,  in  all  its  more 
weighty  and  permanent  consequences  to  the  bondman,  it  is  and  must  be  slavery.  It 
was  said  repeatedly  on  the  floor  of  the  Conference,  that  the  deed  of  trust  had  put  it 
quite  beyond  Bishop  Andrew's  power  to  free  his  slaves,  even  if  there  were  no  other 
obstacle.  So  then,  should  the  stringent  laws  of  Georgia  against  emancipation  be 
relaxed  or  repealed  by  her  next  legislature,  the  rule  of  the  Discipline,  which  would 
then  become  imperative  on  Bishop  Andrew,  could  not,  and  would  not,  be  satisfied, 
and  the  Church  must  still  have  a  slaveholding  bishop,  in  spite,  not  only  of  its  known 
will,  but  of  its  standing  laws. 

"  It  was  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  the  delegates  from  the  non-slaveholding 
conferences  that  Bishop  Andrew  could  not  continue  to  exercise  his  episcopal  func- 
tions under  existing  circumstances,  without  producing  results  extensively  disastrous 
to  the  Church  in  the  North ;  and  from  this  opinion  the  brethren  of  the  South  did  not 
dissent.  For  a  while  the  hope  was  entertained  that  the  difficulty  would  be  quietly 
removed  by  his  resigning  his  office,  which  it  was  known  he  had  previously  desired 
to  do.  But  this  hope  was  dissipated  by  the  intelligence  that  the  delegates  from  the 
conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  had  been  convened,  and  that  they  had  unani- 
mously advised  him  not  to  resign.  Various  efforts  were  then  made  in  private  to 
devise  some  method  to  relieve  the  case,  but  they  all  proved  abortive,  and  no- 
thing remained  but  that  it  must  come  before  the  General  Conference.  The  bishops 
themselves,  in  their  united  Address  to  the  Conference,  had  urged  it  to  ascertain  whe- 
ther there  has  been  any  departure  from  the  essential  principles  '  of  the  general  itin- 
erant superintendency,'  and  had  declared  of  that  superintendency  that  '  the  plan  of 
its  operation  is  general,  embracing  the  whole  work  in  connexional  order,  and  not 
diocesan  or  sectional.  Consequently  any  division  of  the  work  into  districts,  or  other- 
wise, so  as  to  create  a  particular  charge,  with  any  other  view,  or  in  any  order,  than 
as  a  prudential  measure  to  secure  to  all  the  conferences  the  annual  visits  of  the 
superintendents,  would  be  an  innovation  on  the  system' — that  '  our  superintendency 
must  be  itinerant,  and  not  local :' — that  '  it  was  wisely  provided  in  the  system  of 
Methodism,  from  its  very  foundation,  that  it  should  be  the  duty  of  superintendents 
'  to  travel  through  the  Connexion  at  large.  The  question  then  presented  itself,  how 
the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  could  be  so  disposed  of  as  to  preserve  this  itinerant  ge- 
neral superintendency  1  If  the  General  Conference  had  even  been  disposed  to  evade 
it,  the  consideration  of  it  was  forced  upon  them  by  the  episcopal  Address  itself. 

"  A  diversity  of  sentiment  existed  as  to  the  proper  method  of  treating  the  case. 

"  Some,  at  least,  believed — perhaps  few  doubted — that  sufficient  ground  existed 
for  impeachment  on  a  charge  of  '  improper  conduct'  under  the  express  provisions  of 
the  Discipline.  The  opinion  was  certainly  entertained  in  several  quarters  that  it  was 
'  improper'  for  the  shepherd  and  bishop  of  eleven  hundred  thousand  souls,  either 


80 

deliberately  or  heedlessly,  to  place  himself  in  direct  and  irreconcilable  conflict  with 
the  known  and  cherished  moral  sentiments  of  a  large  majority  of  his  vast  flock. 
Such,  however,  was  the  prevalence  of  moderate  counsels,  that  no  proposal  was  made 
either  to  impeach  or  punish,  and  such  the  controlling  influence  of  forbearance  and 
kindness,  that  it  is  believed  not  one  word  was  uttered  during  the  entire  debate  of 
nearlv  a 'fortnight  derogatory  to  the  character,  or  justly  offensive  to  the  feelings  of 
Bishop  Andrew.  The  transaction  which  had  brought  such  distress  upon  the  Church, 
rind  threatened  such  extensive  ruin,  was  dealt  with  merely  as  a  fact — as  a  practical 
difficulty for  the  removal  or  palliation  of  which  it  was  the  duty  of  the  General  Con- 
ference to  provide.  It  was  in  this  spirit,  and  for  such  ends,  that  the  following 
preamble  and  resolution  were  passed  : — 

••  •  Whereas,  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated  to 
destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has  be- 
come connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  which  in  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference  will  greatly 
embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if  not  in 
some  places  entirely  prevent  it ;  therefore, 

"  '  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from 
the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains. 

"  '  J.  B.  FINLEY, 
J.  M.  TRIMBLE.' 

«'  The  action  of  the  General  Conference  was  neither  judicial  nor  punitive.  It 
neither  achieves  nor  intends  a  deposition,  nor  so  much  as  a  legal  suspension. 
Bishop  Andrew  is  still  a  bishop  ;  and  should  he,  against  the  expressed  sense  of  the 
General  Conference,  proceed  in  the  discharge  of  his  functions,  his  official  acts  would 
be  valid. 

"  Such  are  the  facts  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  We  now  proceed  to  notice 
the  law.  Nearly  all  the  objections  raised  in  the  Protest  against  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  may  be  reduced  to  two,  viz.  : — that  that  body  has  violated  the 
constitutional  and  the  statutory  law  of  the  Church.  That  it  has  violated  the  consti- 
tutional law  the  Protest  attempts  to  prove  by  representing  its  late  action  as  a  breach 
of  what  it  calls  '  the  compromise  law  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery  ;' 
meaning,  as  is  supposed,  the  section  on  slavery,  particularly  that  paragraph  which 
relates  to  travelling  preachers.  The  entire  language  on  this  subject  is  evidently 
formed  so  as  to  make  the  impression  on  any  reader  not  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  history  and  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  there  has  been 
some  period  (whether  1804  or  1816  does  not  clearly  appear  from  the  Protest)  when 
the  question  of  slavery  was  settled  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  it  was  in 
the  General  Government  at  the  adoption  of  the  federal  constitution. — that  '  the  con- 
federating annual  conferences,'  '  after  a  vexed  and  protracted  negotiation,'  met  in 
convention,  and  the  section  on  slavery  '  was  finally  agreed  to  by  the  parties,  after  a 
long  and  fearful  struggle,'  as  '  a  compact,'  '  a  treaty,'  which  cannot  be  altered 
by  the  General  Conference  until  certain  constitutional  restrictions  are  removed. 
So  that  now  any  interference  on  the  part  of  that  body  with  the  question  of  slavery 
in  the  Southern  Conferences  is  as  unconstitutional  as  it  is  admitted  would  be  the 
interference  of  the  General  Government  with  the  question  in  the  Southern  States. 

"  After  the  boldness  with  which  this  doctrine  is  advanced,  and  the  confidence  with 
which  it  is  relied  upon  as  '  the  first  and  principal  ground  occupied  by  the  minority 
in  this  Protest,'  it  will  be  difficult  for  the  uninitiated  to  believe,  that  it  is  as  un- 
founded in  fact  as  it  is  ingenious  in  its  '  legal  casuistry.1  It  is  indeed  true,  that  the 
question  of  slavery  had  been  long  and  anxiously  agitated  in  the  Church,  and  the 
various  General  Conferences  had  endeavoured  to  adjust  the  matter  so  as  to  promote 
the  greatest  good  of  all  parties  ;  but  this  very  fact  goes  to  disprove  the  position  as- 
sumed in  the  Protest :  for  as  the  attention  of  the  Church  had  been  thus  strongly 
called  to  the  subject,  if  it  had  been  the  intention  to  guard  the  question  of  slavery  by 
constitutional  provisions,  it  would  have  been  done  when  the  Church  actually  did 
meet  to  frame  a  constitution.  But  nothing  of  the  kind  appears.  For  when,  in  1808, 
it  was  resolved  that  the  General  Conference,  instead  of  consisting,  as  before,  of  all 
the  travelling  elders,  should  be  a  delegated  body,  and  when  it  was  determined  that 
that  body  (unlike  the  General  Government,  which  had  no  powers  but  such  as  are  ex- 
pressly conferred)  should  have  all  powers  but  such  as  are  expressly  taken  away, — 


81 

when  this  vast  authority  was  about  to  be  given  to  the  General  Conference,  among 
'  the  limitations  and  restrictions'  imposed,  there  is  not  one  word  on  the  subject  of  sla- 
very ;  nor  was  any  attempt  made  to  introduce  any  such,  restriction.  The  only  pro- 
vision anywhere  established  by  that  General  Conference  of  constitutional  force,  was 
the  general  rule  forbidding  the  buying  and  selling  of  human  beings  with  an  intention 
to  enslave  them.  So  that,  in  direct  opposition  to  the  assertion  of  the  Protest,  we 
maintain  that  the  section  on  slavery  is  '  a  mere  legislative  enactment,  a  simple  de- 
cree of  a  General  Conference,"  as  much  under  its  control  as  any  other  portion  of  the 
Discipline  not  covered  by  the  restrictive  rules.  If  additional  proof  of  the  truth  of 
this  position  were  needed  it  might  be  adduced  in  the  fact  that  that  section  which  the 
Protest  represents  to  have  been  settled  in  1804,  was  not  only  altered  at  the  General 
Conference  or  convention  of  1808,  but  also  at  the  delegated  General  Conferences  of 
1812,  1816,  1820,  and  1824.  And  although  the  Protest  speaks  of  it  as  '  usually 
known'  by  the  name  of  '  the  compromise  act,'  the  greater  part  of  this  General  Con- 
ference have  never  heard  either  that  appellation  or  that  character  ascribed  to  it  until 
the  present  occasion. 

"  But  although  this  General  Conference  cannot  admit  that  any  portion  of  the  sec- 
tion on  slavery  is  constitutional  in  its  character,  and  therefore  could  not  under  any 
circumstances  allow  the  imputation  of  the  Protest  that  they  have  violated  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  yet  they  do  admit  that  it  is  law — law  too  which  the  General 
Conference  (though  possessing  full  powers  in  the  premises)  has  never  altered  ex- 
cept at  the  above  periods,  and  then,  in  each  instance,  for  the  further  indulgence  of 
the  South.  The  question  then  comes  up,  whether  this  General  Conference,  as  the 
Protest  maintains,  has  in  effect  suddenly  reversed  the  legislation  of  the  Church,  not 
indeed  by  altering  the  law,  but  by  practically  disregarding  it.  The  portion  of  the 
law  particularly  in  question  is  the  following  paragraph  : — 

'"When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any 
means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if 
it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives.' 

"  This  it  is  alleged  fully  covers  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  therefore  he  ought 
to  have  been  left  in  the  quiet  and  unquestionable  enjoyment  of  his  rights.  Were  it 
even  true,  that  proceedings,  either  judicial  or  '  extra-judicial,'  have  been  had  in  his 
case,  we  should  not  hesitate  to  join  issue  here,  and  maintain  that  this  law  does  not 
protect  him.  The  Protest  asks,  '  Is  there  anything  in  the  law  or  its  reasons  creating 
an  exception  in  the  instance  of  bishops  V  We  answer,  There  is  in  both.  So  far  as 
judicial  proceedings  are  concerned,  the  Discipline  divides  the  Church  into  four 
classes — private  members,  local  preachers,  travelling  preachers,  and  bishops ;  and 
establishes  distinct  tribunals,  and  different  degrees  of  responsibility  for  each.  The 
section  on  slavery  applies  only  to  officers  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  private  mem- 
bers are  not  named  at  all,  but  special  provision  is  made  in  the  case  of  local  and 
travelling  preachers.  How  happens  it  that  bishops  are  not  named  at  all  1  Are  they 
necessarily  included  in  the  title  'travelling  preachers^'  In  common  parlance  they 
may  sometimes  be  thus  designated,  but  in  the  Discipline  it  is  not  so  understood,  even 
in  regard  to  matters  much  less  important  than  this,  in  evidence  of  which  we  need 
only  advert  to  the  fact,  that  the  General  Conference  of  1836  did  not  consider  that 
the  allowance  of  bishops  was  provided  for  under  the  general  title  of  '  travelling  preach- 
ers,' and  they  therefore  inserted  them  accordingly.  To  explain  why  no  mention  is 
made  of  'bishops,'  it  is  not  necessary,  as  the  Protest  supposes,  '  to  slander  the  vir- 
tuous dead  of  the  North,'  as  if  they  excluded  them  intentionally  '  by  a  resort  to 
deceptive  and  dishonourable  means.'  It  is  a  much  more  natural  and  reasonable  ex- 
planation, that  at  that  day,  when  the  Church  could  hardly  tolerate  slavery  in  any 
class  of  the  ministry,  '  the  virtuous  dead'  both  of  the  North  and  of  the  South  did 
not  dream  that  it  would  ever  find  its  way  into  the  episcopacy. 

"  But  though  the  language  of  the  law  does  not  include  bishops,  yet  if  the 
'  reason '  and  spirit  of  it  did,  we  might  be  disposed  to  allow  them  the  benefit  of  it. 
But  this  is  not  the  case.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  is  adverse  to  slavery.  Even  the  Protest  has  admitted  (irreconcilable 
as  the  admission  is  with  another  portion  of  the  same  instrument)  that,  at  the  time  of 
the  alleged  '  compact,'  '  the  whole  Church  by  common  consent  united  in  proper 
effort  for  the  mitigation  and  final  removal  of  the  evil  of  slavery.'  But  let  the  Disci- 
pline speak  for  itself.  The  mildest  form  in  which  the  questioa  at  the  head  of  the 

6 


82 

Action  on  slavery  has  ever  been  expressed,  is  the  present,  namely,  '  What  shall  be 
I  the  extirpation  of  the  evil  of  slavery  !'  And  the  very  Conference  of  1804, 
which  enacted  the  so-called  '  compromise  law,'  as  well  as  that  of  1800,  when  the 
paragraph  n -latin;:  to  travelling  preachers  was  really  adopted,  were  each  convened 
under  a  request  Yrom  the  preceding  General  Conference,  that  the  whole  Church 
would  aid  that  body  in  obtaining  '  full  light  in  order  to  take  further  steps  toward  the 
riadicatim'  this  rminnous  rril  from  that  part  of  the  Church  of  God  to  which  they  arc 
united  '  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that  connexion  with  slavery  is  tolerated  no  further 
in  seems  necessary.  In  the  case  of  ordinary  travelling  preachers,  there  appeared 
necessity  for  some  indulgence.  They  might  become  owners  of  slaves  in  the 
providence  of  God  ;  the  laws  of  the  States  might  not  allow  emancipation  ;  and  they 
liad  no  power  to  choose  their  own  place  of  residence.  But  no  such  '  reason '  could 
.ipplv  to  a  bishop,  for  he  has  always  been  allowed  to  live  where  he  pleases.  Again  : 
travelling  preachers  encumbered  with  slaves  labour  among  people  similarly  situ- 
ated, and  who  would,  not,  therefore,  be  likely  to  object  to  them  on  that  account. 
But  a  bishop,  by  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  is  required  to  labour  in  every  part 
of  the  Connexion  ;  and  in  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  it  the  services  of  a  slaveholding 
bishop  would  not  be  acceptable.  So  here  again  the  '  reason '  of  the  case  does  not 
apply  to  a  bishop.  There  is  not,  therefore,  as  the  Protest  so  roundly  asserts,  any 

•  express '  or  '  specific  law '  in  the  case  ;  and  therefore,  as  the  Protest  itself  admits, 

•  in  the  absence  of  law  it  might  be  competent  for  the  General  Conference  to  act  on 
other  grounds.'    With  the  failure  to  prove  any  '  specific  law'   authorizing  a  bishop  to 
hold  slave  property,  the  third  and  fourth  arguments  of  the  Protest,  which  are  founded 
on  this  assumption,  fail  also. 

"  But,  perhaps,  it  is  not  so  much  the  law  of  the  Discipline  which  the  Protest  claims 
to  cover  Bishop  Andrew,  as  the  law  of  the  land.  For  it  declares,  '  The  rights  of  the 
legal  owners  of  slaves  in  all  the  slaveholding  States  are  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  and  by  the  local  constitutions  of  the  States  respectively, 
as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  to  which  every  minister  and  member  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States  government,  professes 
subjection,  and  pledges  himself  to  submit  as  an  article  of  the  Christian  faith,  in  the 
common  creed  of  the  Church.'  If  by  this  is  meant  that  the  law  of  the  land  allows 
citizens  to  hold  slaves,  it  is  admitted.  But  so  also  it  allows  them  to  keep  theatres 
and  grog-shops,  so  that  this  is  no  ground  of  argument.  But  if  it  mean  that  the  law 
of  the  land  requires  citizens  to  keep  slaves,  (the  only  interpretation  which  can  make 
the  argument  available,)  it  is  denied.  And  until  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  by  its  action,  legislative,  judicial,  or  executive,  requires  any 
citizen  to  do  what  the  law  of  the  land  requires  him  not  to  do,  it  is  unjust  to  attempt 
to  get  up  popular  clamor  against  it,  as  if  it  came  in  conflict  with  the  civil  authority. 

i:  This  course  of  reasoning  has  been  pursued  thus  far,  not  so  much  because  it  was 
deemed  necessary  for  the  vindication  of  the  Conference,  as  to  avoid  sanctioning,  by 
silence,  the  erroneous  exposition  which  the  Protest  presents  of  the  constitution  and 
the  law  of  the  Church.  For  it  has  been  already  seen  that  Bishop  Andrew  has  been 
subjected  to  no  trial,  and  no  penalty  has  been  inflicted.  At  present,  it  is  plain  that 
the  Conference  has  done  nothing  to  depose,  or  even  suspend  Bishop  Andrew.  His 
name  will  appear  in  official  publications  with  those  of  the  other  bishops,  and  with 
them  he  will  derive  his  support  from  the  funds  of  the  Church.  In  order  to  make 
nut  that  the  General  Conference  had  no  right  to  take  such  action  as  they  have  in 
Bishop  Andrew's  case,  the  authors  of  the  Protest  have  been  driven  to  the  necessity 
of  claiming  for  the  Methodist  episcopacy  powers  and  prerogatives  never  advanced 
before,  except  by  those  who  wished  to  make  it  odious,  and  which  have  always  been 
repudiated  by  its  chosen  champions.  The  Protest  maintains  that  '  the  episcopacy  is 
a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government ;'  for  which  no  argument  is  adduced  save 
this — that  it  is,  in  general,  the  province  of  bishops  to  ordain  bishops.  A  sufficient 
answer  to  which  may  be  found  in  the  principle  of  Methodist  polity,  stated  in  the  Ad- 
dress of  the  Bishops  to  the  present  General  Conference,  that  orders  (the  principle 
:ipplies  to  bishops,  though  not  expressly  named,  as  well  as  to  elders  and  deacons)  are 
•  conferred '  by  the  election,  and  only  '  confirmed  '  by  the  ordination  ;  and  that  when 

ic  election  has  been  made,  the  bishop  '  has  no  discretional  authority  ;  but  is  under 
obligation  to  ordain  the  person  elected,  whatever  may  be  his  own  judgment  of  his 
nualmcations.'  And  if  all  the  bishops  should  refuse  to  ordain  the  person  elected  by 
the  General  Conference,  that  body  would  unquestionably  have  the  right  to  appoint 

6* 


83 

any  three  elders  to  ordain  him,  as  is  provided  '  in  case  there  be  no  bishop  remaining 
in  our  Church.'  The  Protest  declares,  that  '  the  bishops  are,  beyond  doubt,  an  in- 
tegral, constituent  part  of  the  General  Conference,  made  such  by  law  and  the  con- 
stitution.' If  the  words  'General  Conference '  be  not  a  mere  clerical  error,  the 
assertion  is  sufficiently  refuted  by  the  answer  in  the  Discipline  to  the  question,  '  Who 
shall  compose  the  General  Conference]'  and  by  the  practice  of  the  bishops  them- 
selves, who  disclaim  a  right  to  give  even  a  casting  vote,  or  even  to  speak  in  General 
Conference,  except  by  permission.  The  Protest  maintains  that,  '  in  a  sense  by  no 
means  unimportant,  the  General  Conference  is  as  much  the  creature  of  the  epis- 
copacy, as  the  bishops  are  the  creatures  of  the  General  Conference.'  The  proof 
adduced  for  which  is,  that  '  constitutionally  the  bishops  alone  have  the  right  to  fix 
the  time  of  holding  the  annual  conferences  ;  and  should  they  refuse,  or  neglect  to  do 
so,  no  annual  conference  could  meet  according  to  law  ;  and,  by  consequence,  no  dele- 
gates could  be  chosen,  and  no  General  Conference  could  be  chosen,  or  even  exist.' 
That  is  to  say,  because,  for  the  convenience  of  the  bishops  in  performing  their  tour, 
they  are  allowed  to  say  at  ichat  time  in  the  year  an  annual  conference  shall  meet, 
therefore  they  have  the  power  to  prevent  such  body  from  meeting  at  all,  though, 
from  its  very  name,  it  must  meet  once  a  year  ! — that,  by  preventing  the  meeting  of 
annual  conferences,  they  might  prevent  the  organization  of  any  General  Conference  ; 
and  thus,  escaping  all  accountability  for  their  delinquencies,  might  continue  to  lord 
it  over  God's  heritage,  until  themselves  and  the  Church  should  die  a  natural  death. 
We  can  easily  perceive,  were  this  reasoning  legitimate,  that  the  bishops  might  de- 
stroy, not  only  the  General  Conference,  but  the  Church  ;  but  are  at  a  loss  to  discover 
how  it  proves  that  they  can  create  either.  We  must  protest  against  having  any  argu- 
ment of  ours  adduced  as  analogous  to  this. 

"  The  Protest  maintains  that  '  the  General  Conference  has  no  right,  power,  or 
authority,  ministerial,  judicial,  or  administrative,'  in  any  way  to  subject  a  bishop  '  to 
any  official  disability  whatever,  without  the  formal  presentation  of  a  charge  or 
charges,  alleging  that  the  bishop  to  be  dealt  with  has  been  guilty  of  the  violation  of 
some  law,  or  at  least  some  disciplinary  obligation  of  the  Church,  and  also  upon  con- 
viction of  such  charge,  after  due  form  of  trial.'  To  those  who  are  not  familiar  with 
the  Methodist  economy,  this  might  seem  plausible.  But  it  is,  in  reality,  an  attempt 
to  except,  from  the  action  of  a  general  system,  those  who,  least  of  all,  ought  to  be 
excepted.  The  cardinal  feature  of  our  polity  is  the  itinerancy. 

"  To  sustain  this  system,  it  is  essential  that  the  classes  should  receive  the  leaders 
that  are  appointed  by  the  preacher,  that  the  societies  should  receive  the  preachers 
that  are  stationed  over  them  by  the  bishops,  that  the  annual  conferences  should 
receive  the  bishops  that  are  sent  to  them  by  the  General  Conference.  Unless,  there- 
fore, the  utmost  care  be  taken  by  those  who  have  authority  in  the  premises,  that 
these  parties  shall  severally  be  acceptable  to  those  among  whom  they  labour,  there  is 
great  danger  that  those  who  are  injured  by  such  neglect  may  seek  redress  by  revo- 
lutionary measures.  For  this  reason  the  officers  of  the  Methodist  Church  are 
subjected  regularly  to  an  examination  unknown,  it  is  believed,  among  other  denomi- 
nations. Not  only  is  provision  made  for  formal  trials,  in  cases  of  crimes  and  misde- 
meanors, but  there  is  a  special  arrangement  for  the  correction  of  other  obstruction? 
to  official  usefulness.  At  every  annual  conference  the  character  of  every  travelling 
preacher  is  examined  ;  at  every  General  Conference  that  of  every  bishop.  And  the 
object  is  to  ascertain  not  merely  whether  there  is  ground  for  the  formal  presentation 
of  charges,  with  a  view  to  a  regular  trial  ;  but  whether  there  is  '  any  objection ' — 
anything  that  might  interfere  with  the  acceptance  of  the  officer  in  question  among 
his  charge.  And  it  is  doctrine  novel  and  dangerous  in  the  Methodist  Church,  that 
such  difficulties  cannot  be  corrected,  unless  the  person  objected  to  be  formally 
arraigned  under  some  specific  law,  to  be  found  in  the  concise  code  of  the  Discipline 
— doctrine  not  the  less  dangerous,  because  it  is  applied  where  '  objections,'  unimpor- 
tant in  others,  might  be  productive  of  the  most  disastrous  consequences.  Will  the 
Methodist  Church  sanction  the  doctrine,  that  while  all  its  other  officers,  of  whatever 
name  or  degree,  are  subjected  to  a  sleepless  supervision, — are  counselled,  admonished, 
or  changed,  '  as  necessity  may  require,  and  as  the  Discipline  directs,' — a  bishop,  who 
decides  all  questions  of  law  in  annual  conferences  ;  who,  of  his  mere  motion  and  will, 
controls  the  work  and  the  destiny  of  four  thousand  ministers  ;  who  appoints  and 
changes  at  pleasure  the  spiritual  guides  of  four  millions  of  souls — that  the  depositary 
of  these  vast  powers,  whose  slightest  indiscretions  or  omissions  are  likely  to  disturb 


84 

the  harmony  and  even  impair  the  efficiency  of  our  mighty  system  of  operations,  en- 
joys a  virtual  impunity  for  all  delinquencies  or  misdoings  not  strictly  criminal  1 

'••  It  is  believed  that  an  attempt  to  establish  such  an  episcopal  supremacy  would 
fill  not  only  a  part,  but  the  whole  of  the  Church  '  with  alarm  and  dismay.'  But  this 
doctrine  is  not  more  at  variance  with  the  genius  of  Methodism  than  it  is  with  the  es- 
.iijiuacrr  of  the  Discipline,  and  the  exposition  of  it  by  all  our  standard  writers, 
•istitution  of  the  Church  provides  that  '  the  General  Conference  shall  have  full 
powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church,'  under  six  '  limitations  and 
restrictions,' among  which  the  only  one  relating  to  the  episcopacy  is  this:  'They 
shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part,  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do  away  epis- 
copacy, or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency.1  As  there  is 
nothing  in  the  restrictive  rales  to  limit  the  full  powers  of  the  General  Conference  in 
the  premises,  so  is  there  nothing  in  the  special  provision  respecting  the  responsibility 
of  a  bishop.  In  reply  to  the  question,  '  To  whom  is  a  bishop  amenable  for  his  con- 
duct!' the  Discipline  declares,  'To  the  General  Conference,  who  have  power  to  ex- 
pel him  for  improper  conduct,  if  they  see  it  necessary.'  And  this,  be  it  remembered, 
is  all  that  is  said  respecting  the  jurisdiction  over  a  bishop,  with  the  exception  of  a 
rule  for  his  trial,  in  the  interval  of  a  General  Conference,  if  he  be  guilty  of  immo- 
rality. In  full  accordance  with  the  plain  meaning  of  these  provisions  is  the  language 
of  all  the  standard  writers  on  Methodist  polity. 

"  Bishop  Emory — a  man  of  whom  it  is  no  injustice  to  the  living  or  the  dead  to  say, 
that  he  was  a  chief  ornament  and  light  of  our  episcopacy ;  that  he  brought  to  the  in- 
vestigation of  all  ecclesiastical  subjects  a  cool,  sagacious,  powerful,  practical  intel- 
lect— fully  sustains  the  positions  we  have  assumed  in  behalf  of  the  powers  of  the 
General  Conference  over  the  bishops  of  our  Church.  He  gives  an  unqualified  assent 
to  the  following  passages  from  the  notes  to  the  Discipline,  prepared  by  Bishops 
Asbury  and  Coke,  at  the  request  of  the  General  Conference :  '  They  (our  bishops)  are 
entirely  dependent  on  the  General  Conference :'  '  their  power,  their  usefulness,  them- 
selves, are  entirely  at  the  mercy  of  the  General  Conference.' 

"  Dr.  Emory  also  quotes  some  passages  from  a  pamphlet,  by  the  Rev.  John  Dickens, 
which,  he  says,  was  published  by  the  unanimous  request  of  the  Philadelphia  Con- 
ference, and  may  be  considered  as  expressing  the  views  both  of  that  conference  and 
of  Bishop  Asbury,  his  intimate  friend.  Mr.  Dickens  affirms,  that  the  bishops  derive 
their  power  from  the  election  of  the  General  Conference,  and  not  from  their  ordina- 
tion ;  and  that  the  Conference  has,  on  that  ground,  power  to  remove  Bishop  Asbury, 
and  appoint  another,  '  if  they  see  it  necessary.'  He  affirms  that  Bishop  Asbury  '  de- 
rived his  official  power  from  the  Conference,  and  therefore  his  office  is  at  their  dis- 
posal;'— Mr.  Asbury  was  'responsible  to  the  General  Conference,  who  had  power  to 
remove  him,  if  they  saw  it  necessary;'  'he  is  liable  every  year  to  be  removed.' 

"  The  above  quotations  show  very  clearly  the  sentiments  of  Asbury,  and  Coke, 
and  Dickens  on  this  question — men  chiefly  instrumental  in  laying  the  foundations  of 
our  polity. 

"  Equally  clear  and  satisfactory  is  the  testimony  of  another  venerable  bishop,  who 
still  lives,  in  the  full  exercise  of  his  mental  powers  and  benignant  influence,  to  guide 
and  bless  the  Church, — '  The  superintendents  now  have  no  power  in  the  Church 
above  that  of  elders,  except  what  is  connected  with  presiding  in  the  Conference,  fix- 
ing the  appointments  of  the  preachers,  and  ordaining:' — '  They  are  the  servants  of 
the  elders,  and  go  out  and  execute  their  commands :' — '  The  General  Conference 
may  expel  a  bishop  not  only  for  immoral,  but  for  "  improper  conduct,"  which  means 
a  small  offence  below  a  crime ;  for  which  not  even  a  child  or  a  slave  can  be  expelled 
but  after  repeated  admonitions:' — 'The  travelling  preachers  gave  the  bishop  his 
power,  they  continue  it  in  his  hands,  and  they  can  reduce,  limit,  or  transfer  it  to 
other  hands,  whenever  they  see  cause.'  Such  is  the  language  of  Bishop  Hedding, 
who  only  concurs  in  the  moderate,  truly  Methodistic  views  of  Bishops  Asbury,  Coke, 
and  Emory. 

"  It  is  believed  that  this  statement  of  the  facts  and  the  law  in  the  case,  will  afford 
a  satisfactory  answer  to  all  the  positions  and  reasonings  of  the  Protest ;  and,  after 
having  thus  presented  it,  the  majority  arc  perfectly  willing  to  abide  '  the  decision  of 
our  contemporaries,  and  of  posterity.'  They  cannot,  however,  close  these  remarks, 
without  expressing  their  regret  that  the  minority,  not  content  with  protesting  against 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  as  '  lawless,'  as  '  without  law,  and  contrary  to 
law,'  as  such  '  a  violation  of  the  compromise  law'  that  '  the  public  faith  of  this  body 


85 

can  no  longer  be  relied  upon  as  the  guarantee  for  the  redemption  of  the  pledge, 
'  that  there  shall  be  no  further  curtailment  of  right  as  regards  the  Southern  ministry,'' 
— that,  not  content  with  thus  harshly  assailing  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, they  have  even  refused  to  the  bishops,  whom  they  have  invested  with  such 
exalted  prerogatives,  the  quiet  possession  of  their  thoughts  and  feelings,  but  have 
thrown  out  the  significant  intimation,  '  that  any  bishop  of  the  Church,  either  violating, 
or  submitting  to  the  violation  of  the  compromise  charter  of  union  between  the  North 
and  South,  without  proper  and  public  remonstrance,  cannot  be  acceptable  in  the 
South,  and  need  not  appear  there.'  We  shall  be  slow  to  believe,  that  even  their  con- 
stituents will  justify  them  in  thus  virtually  deposing,  not  one  bishop  only,  but  seve- 
ral, by  a  process  which  is  even  worse  than  'extra-judicial.' 

"  When  all  the  law,  and  the  facts  in  the  case,  shall  have  been  spread  before  an 
impartial  community,  the  majority  have  no  doubt  that  they  will  fix  '  the  responsibi- 
lity of  division,''  should  such  an  unhappy  event  take  place,  '  where  in  justice  it  be- 
longs.' They  will  ask,  \\Tio  first  introduced  slavery  into  the  episcopacy  1  And  the 
answer  will  be,  Not  the  General  Conference.  Who  opposed  the  attempt  to  withdraw 
it  from  the  episcopacy  1  Not  the  General  Conference.  Who  resisted  the  measure  of 
peace  that  was  proposed — the  mildest  that  the  case  allowed!  Not  the  majority. 
Who  first  sounded  the  knell  of  division,  and  declared  that  it  would  be  impossible 
longer  to  remain  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1  Not  the 
majority. 

"  The  proposition  for  a  peaceful  separation,  (if  any  must  take  place,)  with  which 
the  Protest  closes,  though  strangely  at  variance  with  much  that  precedes,  has  already 
been  met  by  the  General  Conference.  And  the  readiness  with  which  that  body  (by 
a  vote  which  would  doubtless  have  been  unanimous  but  for  the  belief  which  some 
entertained  of  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  measure)  granted  all  that  the  Southern 
brethren  themselves  could  ask,  in  such  an  event,  must  forever  stand  as  a  practical 
refutation  of  any  assertion  that  the  minority  have  been  subjected  to  the  tyranny  of  a 
majority. 

"  Finally,  we  cannot  but  hope  that  the  minority,  after  reviewing  the  entire  action 
of  the  Conference,  will  find  that,  both  in  their  Declaration  and  their  Protest,  they 
have  taken  too  strong  a  view  of  the  case ;  and  that,  by  presenting  it  in  its  true  light 
before  their  people,  they  may  be  able  to  check  any  feelings  of  discord  that  may  have 
arisen,  so  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  may  still  continue  as  one  body,  en- 
gaged in  its  proper  work  of  'spreading  Scriptural  holiness  over  these  lands.' 

"  J.  P.  DURBIN,  Chairmen. 
GEO.  PECK, 
CHAS.  ELLIOTT." 

MR.  LORD, — I  will  now  give  your  Honours  the  dates  of  these  papers,  as  they  may 
be  worthy  of  noting  : — 

The  ;'  Declaration,"  your  Honours  will  find  to  have  been  put  in  on  the  5th  of 
June,  1844.  The  date  of  the  passage  of  Mr.  Finley's  resolution  was  the  1st  of  June. 
The  committee  of  nine  to  consider  a  plan  of  separation,  was  appointed  on  the  5th  of 
June.  The  Protest  was  brought  in  on  the  6th  of  June,  and  the  Reply  on  the  10th 
of  the  same  month.  I  propose  also  to  give  the  date  of  some  other  papers  that  I  shall 
presently  read.  The  election  of  two  bishops — Bishops  Hamline  and  Janes — took 
place  on  the  7th  of  June. — Page  128  of  Journal  of  the.  General  Conference  of  1844. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  read  from  page  123  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs  : — 

"  THURSDAY,  JUNE  6. — Bishop  Soule  presented  the  following  communication  : — 
"  '  To  the  General  Conference. 

"  '  REV.  AND  DEAR  BRETHREN, — As  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  unavoidably  in- 
volves the  future  action  of  the  superintendents,  which,  in  their  judgment,  in  the  pre- 
sent position  of  the  bishop,  they  have  no  discretion  to  decide  upon  ;  they  respectfully 
request  of  this  General  Conference  official  instruction,  in  answer  to  the  following 
questions  : — 

••  '  1.  Shall  Bishop  Andrew's  name  remain  as  it  now  stands  in  the  Minutes,  Hymn 
Book,  and  Discipline,  or  shall  it  be  struck  off  of  these  official  records  1 


36 

.    How  shall  the  bishop  obtain  his  support?      As  provided  for  in  the  form 
of  Discipline,  or  in  some  other  way  ? 

"  '  3.  What  work,  if  any,  may  the  bishop  perform  ;  and  how  shall  he  be  appointed 
to  the  work ' 

"  ' JOSHUA  SOULE, 
ELIJAH  HEDDINO, 
BEVERLY  WAUGH, 
THOMAS  A.  MORRIS.' 

"  J.  T.  Mitchell  offered  the  following  resolutions,  in  reply  to  the  several  inquiries 
of  the  superintendents  : — 

"  « 1.  Resolved,  as  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  that  Bishop  Andrew's  name  stand 
in  the  Minutes,  Hymn  Book,  and  Discipline,  as  formerly. 

••  •  2.  Resolved,  That  the  rule  in  relation  to  the  support  of  a  bishop  and  his  family. 
applies  to  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  '  3.  Rcsolced,  That  whether  in  any,  and  if  any,  in  what  work,  Bishop  Andrew 
be  employed,  is  to  be  determined  by  his  own  decision  and  action  in  relation  to  the 
previous  action  of  this  Conference  in  his  case.' 

"  D.  B.  Randall  offered  an  amendment,  which  was  laid  on  the  table. 

"  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered.  During  the  call,  J.  G.  Dow,  F.  G.  Hibbard. 
and  G.  Smith,  asked  to  be  excused  from  voting.  Conference  refused  to  excuse  them. 

"The  first  resolution  was  adopted — ayes  155,  noes  17. 

"  A  motion  to  adjourn  was  made  and  lost. 

"  The  second  resolution  was  read,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered.  During 
the  call  E.  Robinson  objected  to  being  compelled  to  vote.  A  motion  was  made  to 
excuse  him,  but  was  lost.  F.  G.  Hibbard  and  J.  Spaulding  asked  to  be  excused  from 
voting.  Conference  refused  to  excuse  them. 

"  The  resolution  was  adopted — yeas  152,  nays  14. 

"  A  motion  to  adjourn  was  made  and  lost. 

"  The  third  resolution  was  read.  J.  T.  Peck  offered  a  substitute,  which,  on  mo- 
tion of  J.  S.  Porter,  was  laid  on  the  table.  H.  Slicer  offered  a  substitute,  which,  on 
motion  of  T.  Crowder,  was  laid  on  the  table.  J.  A.  Collins  offered  a  substitute, 
which,  on  motion  of  J.  T.  Peck,  was  laid  on  the  table.  T.  Crowder  moved  the  pre- 
vious question,  which  prevailed.  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered,  and  the  vote 
taken. 

"  D.  B.  Randall,  who  voted  in  the  negative,  asked  and  obtained  leave  to  change 
his  vote,  not  having  understood  the  question ;  being  sick  and  obliged  to  be  absent 
during  a  part  of  the  discussion.  He  then  voted  in  the  affirmative. 

"  The  resolution  was  adopted — ayes  103,  noes  67." 

On  Monday,  June  the  10th,  the  two  newly-elected  bishops  were  ordained.  I  will 
read  a  few  passages  from  the  journal  of  the  Conference,  under  that  date  : — pp.  138-9. 

"  On  motion  of  J.  Early,  the  order  of  business  was  suspended,  the  hour  for  ordain- 
ing the  bishops  elect  having  arrived. 

"  Brothers  Hamline  and  Janes,  the  bishops  elect,  were  invited  to  chairs  in  front 
of  the  altar,  the  former  sitting  between  brothers  Pickering  and  Filmore,  and  the  lat- 
ter between  brothers  L.  Pierce  and  Capers. 

"  The  Collect  and  Epistle  were  read  by  Bishop  Waugh,  the  Gospel  by  Bishop 
Morris,  and  the  questions  and  prayers  by  Bishops  Soule  and  Hedding. 

"  Brother  Hamline  was  presented  by  brothers  Pickering  and  Filmore,  and  brother 
Janes  by  brothers  Pierce  and  Capers. 

"  The  imposition  of  hands  was  by  the  four  bishops,  Soule,  Hedding,  Waugh,  and 
Morris. 

"  Thus  Leonidas  Lent  Hamline  and  Edmund  Storer  Janes  were  solemnly  ordained 
superintendents  or  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

I  again  return  to  the  first  of  the  Proofs,  (p.  125,)  and  ask  your  Honours'  atten- 
tion to  the  phraseology.  The  report,  it  will  be  seen,  was  made  on  the  "  Declara- 
tion :" — 

"  SATURDAY,  JUNE  8.— On  motion  of  R.  Paine,  the  special   order  of  the  day  was 


87 

dispensed  with,  and  the  report  of  the  select  committee  of  nine,  on  the  declaration  of 
fifty-one  brethren,  from  the  Southern  conferences,  was  taken  up.  The  report  was 
read  again. 

"  C.  Elliott  moved  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  nine.  The  first 
resolution  was  read.  The  rule  was  suspended  to  allow  P.  Cartwright  to  extend  his 
remarks.  On  the  first  resolution  the  previous  question  was  moved,  and  the  call  was 
sustained.  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  and  taken.  Ayes,  147  ;  noes,  22. 

"  On  motion  of  R.  Paine,  the  vote  by  yeas  and  nays  was  reconsidered.  On  fur- 
ther motion,  the  resolution  was  amended,  by  striking  out  the  words,  '  delegates  from 
the,'  and  inserting  '  annual.'  The  discussion  was  resumed  on  the  amended  resolu- 
tion." 

If  your  Honours  will  turn  to  p.  128,  you  will  see  how  it  was  amended.  The  reso- 
lutions are  there  printed  as  they  were  amended.  After  the  figure  it  originally  read  : 
"  Should  the  delegates  from  the  conferences,"  &c.  They  struck  out  "the  delegates 
from"  and  inserted  "  annual."  "  The  delegates  "  could  only  mean  those  who  were 
then  present.  That  becomes  a  very  material  fact  in  respect  to  one  of  the  claims 
set  up  in  this  matter.  It  was  originally  proposed  that  if  the  delegates  then  present 
should  find  it  necessary  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  the  rule  there 
set  forth  should  be  observed  ;  but,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Paine,  one  of  the  Southern 
delegates,  it  was  determined  that,  instead  of  it  being  left  to  them,  it  should  be  left  to 
the  annual  conferences. 

MR.  FANCHER, — It  was  not  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Paine. 

MR.  LORD, — On  the  motion  of  Mr.  Paine  the  vote  was  reconsidered  ;  and  in  the 
same  connexion  it  is  stated,  "on  further  motion,  the  resolution  was  amended,"  &c., 
and  therefore  I  supposed  it  to  be  Mr.  Paine's  motion. 

MR.  FANCHER, — The  record  does  not  show  whose  motion  it  was. 
MR.  LORD  continued  : — 

"  On  motion,  it  was  resolved  to  meet  again  at  half-past  three  o'clock  this  after- 
noon. 

"  The  previous  question  was  moved  on  the  amended  resolution,  and  the  call  was 
sustained,  and  the  resolution  adopted  by  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  affirmative  to 
eighteen  negative  votes. 

"  On  the  second  resolution,  J.  T.  Mitchell  moved  to  amend,  by  inserting,  '  and 
private  members.'  The  amendment  was  laid  on  the  table." 

By  turning  to  p.  129,  your  Honours  will  sec  how  that  reads.  If  the  amendment 
had  been  adopted,  it  would  have  stood  thus  : — 

"  '  2.  That  ministers,  local  and  travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  "  and  private  members,"  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that 
Church,  or,  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South.' 

"  On  motion  of  J.  A.  Collins,  the  session  was  prolonged  fifteen  minutes. 

"  The  second  resolution  was  adopted  by  one  hundred  and  thirty-nine  affirmative  to 
seventeen  negative  votes. 

"  A  motion  to  adjourn  was  lost. 

"  The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  on  the  third  resolution. 

"  The  previous  question  was  moved,  and  the  call  sustained. 

"  The  session  was  further  prolonged  until  the  call  of  the  roll  was  completed,  and 
the  vote  finished. 

"  The  third  resolution  was  adopted  by  one  hundred  and  forty-seven  yeas  to  twelve 
nays. 

"  Adjourned  with  the  benediction  by  brother  Pickering. 


88 

••  SATTRPAY  AFTKRXOOV,  JUXE  8. — Conference  met  at  half-past  three  o'clock, 
pursuant  to  adjournmrnt,  Bishop  Morris  in  the  chair,  and  was  opened  with  religious 
'.rot her  Simpson. 

••  The  journal  of  the  morning  was  read  and  approved. 

"  On  motion  of  M.  Simpson,  G.  Peck  and  C.  Elliott  were  put  in  place  of  S.  Olin 
and  L.  L.  Mainline,  on  the  select  committee  of  three  to  prepare  a  statement  of  the 
action  of  this  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  On  motion,  the  special  order  of  business,  on  which  Conference  adjourned  this 
morning,  was  resumed. 

"  The  fourth  resolution  of  the  report  of  the  select  committee  of  nine  was  adopted. 

••  (In  the  fifth  resolution  the  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered.  It  was  adopted  by  one 
hundred  and  fifty-three  yeas  to  thirteen  nays. 

•'  The  sixth,  seventh,  eighth,  and  ninth  resolutions  were  adopted. 

••  To  the  tenth  resolution  D.  B.  Randall  moved  an  amendment  which  was  adopted, 
and  is  incorporated  with  the  resolution. 

"  The  eleventh  and  twelfth  resolutions  were  adopted.  On  motion,  the  order  of  the 
eleventh  and  twelfth  resolutions  was  inverted,  so  as  to  make  the  latter  stand  first. 

"  The  preamble  of  the  report  was  adopted. 

"  The  blank  in  the  seventh  resolution  was  filled  up  with  "  three  ;"  and  N.  Bangs, 
G.  Peck,  and  G.  Filmore,  were  appointed  commissioners  under  the  seventh  resolu- 
tion. G.  Filmore  tendered  his  resignation,  which  was  accepted,  and  J.  B.  Finley 
appointed  in  his  place. 

"On  motion  of  W.  Winans,  the  Secretary  was  requested  to  prepare  and  furnish  to  J. 
Early  a  copy  of  the  "  Declaration  "  so  often  referred  to,  and  of  the  report  just  adopted. 

"  B.  M.  Drake  offered  a  resolution,  which,  on  motion,  was  laid  on  the  table." 

That  was  one  of  the  resolutions  which  I  read  from  one  book. 

"  J.  Porter  moved  a  reconsideration  of  the  first  resolution,  with  a  view  of  offering 
a  substitute.  The  motion  to  reconsider  was  laid  on  the  table. 

"  The  report  as  a  whole  was  adopted.     It  is  as  follows  : — 

"  '  The  select  committee  of  nine,  to  consider  and  report  on  the  Declaration  of  the 
delegates  from  the  conferences  of.  the  slaveholding  States,  beg  leave  to  submit  the 
following  report : — 

"  '  Whereas  a  Declaration  has  been  presented  to  this  General  Conference,  with 
the  signatures  of  fifty-one  delegates  of  the  body,  from  thirteen  annual  conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  representing  that,  for  various  reasons  enumerated,  the  ob- 
jects and  purposes  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church  organization  cannot  be  suc- 
cessfully accomplished  by  them  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference  as 
now  constituted ;  and 

"  '  Whereas,  in  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  contingency  to  which  the  Declaration  asks 
attention  as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Conference  to 
meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity ;  therefore, 

"  '  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  General  Con- 
ference assembled, 

"  '  1.  That,  should  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  find  it  necessary 
to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  the  following  rule  shall  be  observed 
with  regard  to  the  northern  boundary  of  such  connexion  : — All  the  societies,  stations, 
and  conferences  adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South,  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  said  societies,  stations,  and  conferences,  shall  remain  under  the  unmo- 
lested pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church ;  and  the  ministers  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  shall  in  no  wise  attempt  to  organize  Churches  or  societies  within 
the  limits  of  the  Church  South,  nor  shall  they  attempt  to  exercise  any  pastoral  over- 
sight therein  ;  it  being  understood  that  the  ministry  of  the  South  reciprocally  observe 
the  same  rule  in  relation  to  stations,  societies,  and  conferences  adhering,  by  a  vote 
of  a  majority,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  provided,  also,  that  this  rule  shall 
apply  only  to  societies,  stations,  and  conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of  division, 
and  not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases  be  left  to  the  care  of  that  Church 
within  whose  territory  they  are  situated. 

'  '  2.  That  ministers  local  and  travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame, 
attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South. 


89 

"  '  3.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  all  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  That  we  recommend  to  all  the  annual  conferences,  at  then-  first  ap- 
proaching sessions,  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that  the 
first  clause  shall  read  thus  : — "  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book 
Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  other  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit 
of  the  travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows,  and  children,  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  upon  by  the 
votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference." 

"  '  4.  That  whenever  the  annual  conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their 
members  voting  on  the  third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred  in  the  recommendation 
to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the  agents  at  New- York  and  Cincinnati  shall, 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  over  to  any  authorized  agent 
or  appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should  one  be  organized,  all  notes  and  book  ac- 
counts against  the  ministers,  Church  members,  or  citizens  within  its  boundaries,  with 
authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use  of  the  Southern  Church  ;  and  that  said 
agents  also  convey  to  the  aforesaid  agent  or  appointee  of  the  South,  all  the  real 
estate,  and  assign  to  him  all  the  property,  including  presses,  stock,  and  all  right  and 
interest  connected  with  the  printing  establishments  at  Charleston,  Richmond,  and 
Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  '  5.  That  when  the  annual  conferences  shall  have  approved  the  aforesaid  change 
in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  there  shall  be  transferred  to  the  above  agent  of  the 
Southern  Church  so  much  of  the  capital  and  produce  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern 
as  will,  with  the  notes,  book  accounts,  presses,  &c.,  mentioned  in  the  last  resolution, 
bear  the  same  proportion  to  the  whole  property  of  said  Concern  that  the  travelling 
preachers  in  the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  travelling  ministers  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  the  division  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of 
travelling  preachers  in  the  forthcoming  minutes. 

"  '  6.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the  form  of  annual  payments  of  $25,000  per 
annum,  and  specifically  in  stock  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  in  Southern  notes  and  ac- 
counts due  the  establishment,  and  accruing  after  the  first  transfer  mentioned  above  ; 
and  until  the  payments  are  made,  the  Southern  Church  shall  share  in  all  the  net 
profits  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the  proportion  that  the  amount  due  them,  or  in  arrears, 
bears  to  all  the  property  of  the  Concern. 

"  '  7.  That  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck,  and  James  B.  Finley  be,  and  they  are 
hereby  appointed  commissioners  to  act  in  concert  with  the  same  number  of  commis- 
sioners appointed  by  the  Southern  organization,  (should  one  be  formed,)  to  estimate 
the  amount  which  will  fall  due  to  the  South  by  the  preceding  rule,  and  to  have  full 
powers  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangements  proposed  with  regard  to  the  divi- 
sion of  property,  should  the  separation  take  place.  And  if  by  any  means  a  vacancy 
occurs  in  this  board  of  commissioners,  the  Book  Committee  at  New-York  shall  fill 
said  vacancy. 

"  '  8.  That  whenever  any  agents  of  the  Southern  Church  are  clothed  with  legal 
authority  or  corporate  power  to  act  in  the  premises,  the  agents  at  New- York  are 
hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  act  in  concert  with  said  Southern  agents,  so  as  to 
give  the  provisions  of  these  resolutions  a  legally  binding  force. 

"  '  9.  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  meeting-houses, 
parsonages,  colleges,  schools,  conference  funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every  kind  within 
the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization,  shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up 
on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this  resolution  can  be  of 
force  in  the  premises. 

"  '10.  That  the  Church  so  formed  in  the  South  shall  have  a  common  right  to  use 
all  the  copy-rights  in  possession  of  the  Book  Concerns  at  New-York  and  Cincinnati, 
at  the  time  of  the  settlement  by  the  commissioners. 

"  '11.  That  the  book  agents  at  New- York  be  directed  to  make  such  compensation 
to  the  conferences  South,  for  their  dividend  from  the  Chartered  Fund,  as  the  com- 
missioners above  provided  for  shall  agree  upon. 

•'  '  That  the  bishops  be  respectfully  requested  to  lay  that  part  of  this  report  requir- 
ing the  action  of  the  annual  conferences,  before  them  as  soon  as  possible,  beginning  with 
the  New-York  Conference.'  " 

That  is  all  we  shall  read  from  the  Book  of  Proofs  No.  1.  What  remains,  belongs 
to  our  friends  on  the  other  side,  if  they  think  it  necessary  to  introduce  it.  I  will 


90 

now  proceed  to  read  that  part  of  the  evidence  which  relates  to  the  organization  of 
the  Church  under  this  Plan  of  Separation.  I  read  from  the  Book  of  Proofs  No.  2, 
page  1:— 

"  1.  History  of  proceedings  of  the  Delegates  from  slaveholding  States,  at  their  meet- 
ing in  the  City  of  New  -  York,  on  the  day  after  the  adjournment  of  the  General 
Conference  of  1844. 

"  At  that  meeting,  they  adopted  the  following  plan  of  action  as  proper  to  be  recom- 
mended to  the  conferences  represented  by  them  : — 

••  '  With  a  view  to  promote  uniformity  of  action  in  the  premises,  we  beg  leave  to 
submit  to  your  consideration  the  expediency  of  concurring  in  the  following  plan  of 
procuring  the  judgment  of  the  Church  within  the  slaveholding  States,  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  organizing  a  Southern  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  of  effecting  such  an  organization  should  it  be  deemed  necessary  : — 

"  '  1.  There  shall  be  a  convention  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  to  commence  the 
1st  of  May,  1845, — composed  of  delegates  from  the  several  annual  conferences  within 
the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  in  the  ratio  of  one  for  every  eleven  members. 

"  '  2.  These  delegates  shall  be  appointed  at  the  ensuing  session  of  the  several  an- 
nual conferences  enumerated,  each  conference  providing  for  the  expenses  of  its 
own  delegates. 

"  '  3.  These  several  annual  conferences  shall  instruct  their  delegates  to  the  proposed 
convention  on  the  points  on  which  action  is  contemplated — conforming  their  instruc- 
tions, as  far  as  possible,  to  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  membership  within  their 
several  conference  bounds.' 

"  They  also  sent  abroad  the  following  address  : — 

"  <  ADDRESS 

"  '  To  the  Ministers  and  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the 
Slaveholding  States  and  Territories. 

"  '  The  undersigned,  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  from  thirteen  annual  conferences  in  slaveholding  States  and  Ter- 
ritories, would  most  respectfully  represent — that  the  various  action  of  the  majority 
of  the  General  Conference,  at  its  recent  session,  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  aboli- 
tion, has  been  such  as  to  render  it  necessary,  in  the  judgment  of  those  addressing 
you,  to  call  attention  to  the  proscription  and  disability  under  which  the  Southern 
portion  of  the  Church  must  of  necessity  labour  in  view  of  the  action  alluded  to,  un- 
less some  measures  are  adopted  to  free  the  minority  of  the  South  from  the  oppressive 
jurisdiction  of  the  majority  in  the  North,  in  this  respect. 

"  '  The  proceedings  of  the  majority,  in  several  cases  involving  the  question  of 
slavery,  have  been  such  as  indicate  most  conclusively  that  the  legislative,  judicial, 
and  administrative  action  of  the  General  Conference,  as  now  organized,  will  always 
be  extremely  hurtful,  if  not  finally  ruinous,  to  the  interests  of  the  Southern  portion  of 
the  Church ;  and  must  necessarily  produce  a  state  of  conviction  and  feeling  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  entirely  inconsistent  with  either  the  peace  or  prosperity  of  the 
Church. 

"  '  The  opinions  and  purposes  of  the  Church  in  the  North  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
are  in  direct  conflict  with  those  of  the  South,  and  unless  the  South  will  submit  to  the 
dictation  and  interference  of  the  North,  greatly  beyond  what  the  existing  law  of  the 
Church  on  slavery  and  abolition  authorizes,  there  is  no  hope  of  anything  like  union 
or  harmony.  The  debate  and  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Harding,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  ;  the  debate  and  action  in  the  case 
of  Bishop  Andrew  ;  and  the  opinions  and  purposes  avowed  and  indicated  in  a  mani- 
festo of  the  majority,  in  reply  to  a  Protest  from  the  minority  against  the  proceedings 
complained  of, — together  with  hundreds  of  petitions  from  the  East,  North,  and  West, 
demanding  that  slavery,  in  all  its  possible  forms,  be  separated  from  the  Church  ; — 
these,  and  similar  demonstrations,  have  convinced  the  undersigned,  that  they  cannot 
remain  silent  or  inactive  without  hazard  and  injustice  to  the  different  portions  of  the 
Church  they  represent. 

"  '  They  have,  therefore,  thought  proper  to  invoke  the  attention  of  the  Church  in 
the  South  to  a  state  of  things  they  are  compelled  to  regard  as  worthy  the  immediate 


91 

notice  and  action  of  the  Church  throughout  all  the  slaveholding  states  and  territories. 
The  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition,  notwithstanding  the  plain  law  of  the  Discipline 
on  the  subject,  was  agitated  and  debated  in  the  late  General  Conference,  for  five 
successive  weeks ;  and  even  at  the  very  close  of  the  session,  the  aspect  of  things  was 
less  satisfactory  and  more  threatening  to  the  South  than  at  any  former  period  ;  and 
under  such  circumstances  of  mutual  distrust  and  disagreement,  the  General  Confer- 
ence adjourned. 

"  '  Some  time  before  the  adjournment,  however,  upon  a  Declaration  made  by  the 
Southern  delegations,  setting  forth  the  impossibility  of  enduring  such  a  state  of 
things  much  longer,  the  General  Conference,  by  a  very  large  and  decided  majority, 
agreed  to  a  plan  of  formal  and  pacific  separation,  by  which  the  Southern  conferences 
are  to  have  a  distinct  and  independent  organization  of  their  own,  in  no  way  subject  to 
Northern  jurisdiction.  It  affords  us  pleasure  to  state  that  there  were  those  found 
among  the  majority  who  met  this  proposition  with  every  manifestation  of  justice  and 
liberality.  And  should  a  similar  spirit  be  exhibited  by  the  annual  conferences  in  the 
North,  when  submitted  to  them,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  itself,  there  will  remain 
no  legal  impediment  to  its  peaceful  consummation. 

"  '  This  Plan  is  approved  by  the  undersigned  as  the  best,  and,  indeed,  all  that  can 
be  done  at  present,  in  remedy  of  the  great  evil  under  which  we  labour.  Provision  is 
made  for  a  peaceable  and  constitutional  division  of  Church  property  of  every  kind. 
The  Plan  does  not  decide  that  division  shall  take  place  ;  but  simply,  and  it  is 
thought  securely,  provides  that  it  may,  if  it  be  found  necessary.  Of  this  necessity, 
you  are  to  be  the  judges,  after  a  careful  survey  and  comparison  of  all  the  reasons  for 
and  against  it. 

" '  As  the  undersigned  have  had  opportunity  and  advantages  which  those  at  a  dis- 
tance could  not  possess,  to  form  a  correct  judgment  in  the  premises,  and  it  may  be 
expected  of  them  that  they  express  their  views  fully  on  the  subject,  they  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  say,  that  they  regard  a  separation  at  no  distant  day  as  inevitable  ;  and 
further,  that  the  Plan  of  Separation  agreed  upon  is  as  eligible  as  the  Southern  con- 
ferences have  any  right  to  expect  at  any  time.  We  most  respectfully,  therefore,  and 
with  no  common  solicitude,  beseech  our  brethren  of  the  ministry  and  membership  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  to  examine  this  matter  carefully,  and  weighing  it  well  in  all 
its  bearings,  try  to  reach  the  conclusion  most  proper  under  the  circumstances.  Shall 
that  which,  in  all  moral  likelihood,  must  take  place  soon,  be  attempted  now,  or  are 
there  reasons  why  it  should  be  postponed  ? 

;' '  We  deprecate  all  excitement ;  we  ask  you  to  be  calm  and  collected,  and  t» 
approach  and  dispose  of  the  subject  with  all  the  candour  and  forbearance  the  occa- 
sion demands.  The  separation  proposed  is  not  schism,  it  is  nut  secession.  It  is  a 
state  or  family,  separating  into  two  different  states  or  families,  by  mutual  consent. 
As  the  "  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  "  will  be  found  north  of  the  dividing  line,  so 
the  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church"  will  be  found  south  of  the  same  line. 

"  '  The  undersigned  have  clung  to  the  cherished  unity  of  the  Church  with  a  firm- 
ness of  purpose  and  force  of  feeling  which  nothing  but  invincible  necessity  could 
subdue.  If,  however,  nominal  unity  must  co-exist  with  unceasing  strife  and  alien- 
ated feeling,  what  is  likely  to  be  gained  by  its  perpetuation  T  Every  minister  and 
member  of  the  Church  in  slave-holding  States  must  perceive  at  once,  that  the  con- 
stant, not  to  say  interminable,  agitation  of  the  slavery  and  abolition  question  in  the 
councils  of  the  Church,  and  elsewhere,  must  terminate  in  incalculable  injury  to  all 
the  Southern  conferences.  Our  access  to  slave  and  master  is  to  a  great  extent  cut 
off.  The  legislation  of  the  Church  in  conflict  with  that  of  the  State — Church  policy 
attempting  to  control  public  opinion  and  social  order — must  generate  an  amount  of 
hostility  to  the  Church,  impossible  to  be  overcome,  and  slowly  but  certainly  diminish 
both  the  means  and  the  hope  of  usefulness  and  extension  on  the  part  of  the  Church. 

" '  Disposed,  however,  to  defer  to  the  judgment  of  the  Church,  we  leave  this  sub- 
ject with  you.  Our  first  and  most  direct  object  has  been  to  bring  it  fully  before  you, 
and,  giving  you  an  opportunity  to  judge  and  determine  for  yourselves,  await  your 
decision.  The  minority  from  the  South  in  the  late  General  Conference,  were  most 
anxious  to  adjourn  the  decision  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  with  all  its  attendant 
results,  to  the  annual  conferences  and  to  the  Church  at  large,  to  consider  and  decide 
upon  during  the  next  four  years — as  no  charge  was  presented  against  the  bishop,  and 
especially  as  this  measure  was  urgently  recommended  by  the  whole  bench  of  bishops, 
although  Bishop  Hedding  subsequently  withdrew  his  name.  The  proposition,  how  • 


92 

ever,  to  refer  the  whole  subject  to  the  Church,  was  promptly  rejected  by  the  ma- 
jority, and  immediate  action  demanded  and  had.  But  as  all  the  facts  connected  with 
the  equivocal  suspension  of  Bishop  Andrew,  will  come  before  you  in  other  forms,  it 
is  unnecessary  to  detail  them  in  this  brief  address,  the  main  object  of  which  is  to 
place  before  you,  in  a  summary  way,  the  principal  facts  and  reasons  connected  with 
the  proposed  separation  of  the  Southern  conferences  into  a  distinct  organization.' 

•'  Adopted  at  a  meeting  of  the  Southern  delegations,  held  in  New-York,  at  the 
close  of  the  General  Conference,  June  11,  1844,  and  ordered  to  be  published. 

••  Signed  on  behalf  of  the  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Holston,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina, 
Memphis,  Arkansas,  Virginia,  Mississippi,  Texas,  Alabama,  Georgia,  and  South 
Carolina  Annual  Conferences. 

tucki/,  H.  B.  Bascom,  William  Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  E.  Stevenson, 
B.  T.  Crouch,  G.  W.  Brush.  Missouri,  W.  W.  Redman,  W.  Patton,  J.  C.  Berry- 
man,  J.  M.  Jameson.  Holston,  E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  T.  Stringfield.  Tennessee, 
R.  Paine,  J.  B.  M'Ferrin,  A.  L.  P.  Green,  T.  Maddin.  North  Carolina,  B.  T.  Blake, 
J.  Jamjeson,  P.  Doub.  Memphis,  G.  W.  D.  Harris,  S.  S.  Moody,  W.  M'Mahon, 
Thomas  Joyner.  Arkansas,  J.  C.  Parker,  W.  P.  Ratcliffe,  A.  Hunter.  Virginia, 
J.  Early,  T.  Crowder,  W.  A.  Smith,  L.  M.  Lee.  Mississippi,  W.  Winans,  B.  M. 
Drake,  J.  Lane,  G.  M.  Rogers.  Texas,  Littleton  Fowler.  Alabama,  J.  Boring, 
J.  Hamilton,  W.  Murrah,  G.  Garrett.  Georgia,  G.  F.  Pierce,  W.  J.  Parks,  L. 
Pierce,  J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  E.  Evans,  A.  B.  Longstreet.  South  Carolina,  W.  Capers, 
W.  M.  Wightman,  C.  Belts,  S.  Dunwody,  H.  A.  C.  Walker." 

If  your  Honours  please,  I  propose  now  to  show  the  action  of  the  several  Southern 
conferences  upon  the  subject.  I  begin  to  read  on  page  7. 

"  The  Kentucky  Conference  was  the  first  in  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church 
to  meet  after  the  adjournment  of  the  General  Conference.  It  convened  on  the  llth 
of  September,  1844,  and  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  with  but  one  dissenting 
vote : — 

" '  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Division. 

"  '  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  division  of  the  Church 
into  two  separate  General  Conference  jurisdictions,  and  kindred  subjects,  have  had 
the  same  under  serious  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  report : — 

"  '  That,  enlightened  as  the  conference  is  presumed  to  be,  on  the  merits  of  the  very 
important  subject  upon  which  your  committee  have  been  called  to  act,  it  was  not 
deemed  expedient  to  delay  this  report  by  an  elaborate  and  argumentative  investiga- 
tion of  the  matters  committed  to  them,  in  their  various  relations,  principles,  and 
bearings  ;  they,  therefore,  present  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  conference 
by  offering  for  adoption  the  following  resolutions  : — 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  this  conference,  that  the 
action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  virtually  deposing  Bishop  Andrew,  and  also 
their  action  in  confirming  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  in  the  case  of 
the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are  not  sustained  by  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  and  that 
we  consider  those  proceedings  as  constituting  a  highly  dangerous  precedent. 

"  '  2.  Resolved,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  division  growing  out  of  these 
proceedings,  and  that  we  do  most  sincerely  hope  and  pray  that  some  effectual  means, 
not  inconsistent  with  the  interests  and  honour  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested  and 
devised,  by  which  so  great  a  calamity  maybe  averted,  and  to  this  end  we  recommend 
that  our  societies  be  freely  consulted  on  the  subject. 

"  '  3.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the 
conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of 
May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South-western  dele- 
gates in  the  late  General  Conference  ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed 
by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  conference — be 
and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted  ;  and  that  this  conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the 
proposed  convention  upon  said  basis. 

"  '4.  Resolved,  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the  delegates 
of  this  conference  are  hereby  required  to  act  under  the  following  instructions,  to  wit : 
that  the  Southern  and  South-western  conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  seces- 
sion from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  recognised  in  law, 
and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 


93 

Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  jurisdiction. 
And  further,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  as  it  is,  this 
conference  instruct  its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favour  any  change  in  said  Disci- 
pline by  said  convention. 

"  '  5.  Resolved,  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  ministry  and 
membership  can  be  effectually  secured  according  to  Discipline,  against  future  aggres- 
sions, and  reparation  be  made  for  past  injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  divi- 
sion unavoidable. 

"  '  6.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  the  late  General 
Conference  in  the  premises,  and  that  we  tender  them  our  thanks  for  their  faithful  and 
independent  discharge  of  duty  in  a  trying  crisis. 

" '  7.  Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  this  conference  be  directed  to  have  these 
resolutions  published  in  such  of  our  Church  papers  as  may  be  willing  to  insert  them. 

"  '  All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted.  M.  M.  HENKLE,  Chairman.'' 

"  Further  Action  in  Reference  to  the  Contemplated  Convention, 

"  '  Resolved,  by  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  That  should  the  proposed  con- 
vention, representing  the  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to  assemble  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  the  first  of 
May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as  contingently  provided  for  in  the 
resolutions  of  this  body  on  yesterday,  then  and  in  that  event,  the  convention  shall  be 
regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference,  authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several  an- 
nual conferences  of  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights, 
powers,  and  privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States,  and  subject  to  the  same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action  of  the 
convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take 
place,  the  ratio  of  representation  as  now  found  in  the  2d  restrictive  rule,  one  for 
every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the  number  of  constitutional  delegates, 
taking  and  accrediting  as  such  the  proper  number  from  each  annual  conference  first 
elected  in  order,  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of 
the  convention  to  deliberate,  etc.,  but  not  members  of  the  General  Conference  proper, 
should  the  convention  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South — Provided, 
nevertheless,  that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates,  who  would  not  be  excluded  from 
the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent, 
then  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  member 
or  members  of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or 
seats  of  such  absent  delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  the  selection  named  above. 

"  '  Resolved,  by  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  That  we  respectfully  invite  the 
bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  may  feel  themselves  disposed  to  do 
so,  to  be  in  attendance  at  the  contemplated  convention,  to  be  held  in  the  city  of 
Louisville,  Ky.,  in  May,  1845. 

"  '  Resolved,  by  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference,  That  we  appoint  the  Friday  im- 
mediately preceding  the  day  fixed  for  the  meeting  of  the  proposed  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  delegates  of  the  conferences,  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the 
blessing  of  Almighty  God  on  the  said  convention.' 

"  The  Missouri  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and  resolutions,  from  the 
Committee  on  Division : — 

"  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Division. 

"  '  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  a  division  of  the  Church 
into  two  separate  General  Conference  jurisdictions,  together  with  the  causes  and 
circumstances  connected  with  the  same,  have  bestowed  upon  it,  in  the  most  prayerful 
and  religious  manner,  all  the  time  and  attention  they  could  command  for  the  purpose, 
and  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  as  their  report  : — 

"  '  That  inasmuch  as  the  conference  is  presumed  to  be  well  informed  on  the  merits 
of  the  very  important  subject  upon  which  the  committee  has  been  called  to  act,  it 
was  not  deemed  necessary  to  delay  this  report  by  an  extended  and  argumentative 
investigation  of  the  matters  committed  to  them,  in  their  various  relations,  principles, 
and  bearings  ;  they  would,  therefore,  present  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the 
conference  by  offering  for  adoption  the  following  resolutions : — 

"  *  Resolved,  That  we  have  looked  for  many  years,  with  painful  apprehension  and 


94 

disapproval,  upon  the  notation  of  the  slavery  and  abolition  subject  in  our  General 
<  Conference,  and  now  behold  with  sorrow  and  regret,  the  disastrous  results  which  it 
has  brought  about. 

••  •  Resetted,  That  while  we  accord  to  the  great  majority  of  our  Northern  brethren 
the  utmost  purity  of  intention,  and  while  we  would  carefully  refrain  from  all  harsh 
Denunciations,  we  are  compelled  to  pronounce  the  proceedings  of  the  late  General 
( 'onfercncr  against  Bishop  Andrew,  extra-judicial  and  oppressive. 

: '.<«>lrrd,  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  separation  growing  out  of 
these  proceedings,  and  that  we  do  most  sincerely  hope  and  pray  that  some  effectual 
means  not  inconsistent  with  the  interests  and  honour  of  all  concerned,  may  be  sug- 
gested and  devised,  by  which  so  great  a  calamity  may  be  averted  ;  and  to  this  end 
we  recommend  that  our  societies  be  freely  consulted  on  this  subject. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the 
conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the 
1  st  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  delegates  from  the 
Southern  and  South-western  conferences,  in  the  late  General  Conference  ;  and  that 
the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  even' 
eleven  members  of  the  conference — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted  ;  and  that 
this  conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  convention  upon  said  basis. 

" '  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  act  under  the  following  instructions,  to  wit : 
to  oppose  the  division  of  the  Church,  unless  such  division,  under  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  (and  consequently  unavoidable  ;) 
and  should  such  necessity  be  found  to  exist,  and  the  division  be  determined  on, 
then,  and  in  that  event,  that  the  Southern  and  South-western  conferences  shall  not 
be  regarded  as  a  secession  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall 
be  recognised  in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under 
a  separate  jurisdiction.  And  further,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of 
the  Church  as  it  is.  this  conference  instruct  its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favour 
any  change  in  said  Discipline  by  said  convention. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  ministry  and 
membership  can  be  effectually  secured  according  to  the  Discipline,  against  future 
aggressions,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  division  as  unavoidable. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  representing  the  annual  con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to 
assemble  at  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  the  1st  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a 
separate  organization,  as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then, 
in  that  event,  the  convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference, 
authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Southern  division 
of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  the  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and 
subject  to  the  same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action  of  the 
convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take 
place,  the  ratio  of  representation  as  now  found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for 
every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the  constitutional  delegates,  taking 
and  accrediting  as  such  the  proper  number  from  each' annual  conference,  first  elected 
in  order,  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  con- 
vention to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should 
the  convention  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  never- 
theless, that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be  excluded  from  the 
General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent,  then 
any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulations  as  a  member  or 
members  of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or 
seats  of  such  absent  delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

'* '  Resolved,  That  we  nave  read  with  deep  regret  the  violent  proceedings  of  some 
of  our  Southern  brethren,  in  their  primary  meetings,  against  some  of  our  bishops 
and  others  ;  and  that  we  do  most  cordially  invite  to  our  pulpits  and  firesides  all  our 
bishops  and  Northern  brethren,  who,  in  the  event  of  a  division,  shall  belong  to  the 
Northern  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

4 '  Resolved,  That  the  preachers  shall  take  up  public  collections  in  all  their  cir- 
cuiU  and  stations,  sometime  before  the  first  day  of  March  next,  for  the  purpose  of 


95 

defraying  the  expenses  of  the  delegates  to  the  above-named  convention,  and  pay 
over  the  same  to  the  delegates,  or  the  respective  presiding  elders,  so  that  the  dele- 
gates may  receive  the  same  before  starting  to  the  convention. 

" '  Wm.  Patten,  Andrew  Monroe,  J.  Boyle,  \V.  W.  Redman,  John  Glannville, 
E.  Perkins,  T.  W.  Chandler,  Jas.  G.  T.  Dunleavy,  John  Thatcher. — Committee.'' 

"  The  following  resolutions  were  offered  and  immediately  adopted  by  the  con- 
ference : — 

"  *  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  their  action  at  the 
late  General  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  part  they  took  hi 
the  subsequent  acts  of  the  Southern  delegates,  growing  out  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  majority,  and  they  are  hereby  entitled  to  our  hearty  thanks  for  their  manly 
course  in  a  trying  crisis. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  we  invite  the  bishops  of  our  Church,  who  may  feel  free  to  do 
so,  and  they  are  hereby  invited,  to  attend  the  contemplated  convention  at  Louisville, 
Kentucky.  J.  H.  LINN, 

R.  BOYD.' 

"  The  Holston  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and  resolutions  from  the 
Committee  on  Separation  : — 

"  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Separation. 

" '  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  Church  separation  and 
other  matters  connected  therewith,  would  respectfully  submit  the  following  re- 
port : — 

"  '  In  common  with  our  brethren  all  over  our  widely-extended  Zion,  our  hearts  are 
exceedingly  pained  at  the  prospect  of  disunion,  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  late 
General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Your  committee  believe  this 
action  to  be  extra-judicial,  and  forming  a  highly-dangerous  precedent.  The  aspect 
of  affairs  at  the  close  of  the  General  Conference,  was  indeed  gloomy ;  and  while  we 
have  sought  for  light  from  every  possible  source,  we  cannot  believe  that  our  Church 
papers  are  the  true  exponents  of  the  views  and  feelings  of  the  whole  South,  or  of 
the  whole  North.  We  would  respect  the  opinions  of  our  brethren  everywhere,  but 
we  feel  that  we  shall  not  be  doing  justice  to  ourselves,  the  Church,  or  the  world,  if 
we  do  not  express  independently,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  our  own  sentiments  on  this 
important  subject.  We  are  not  prepared  to  see  the  Church  of  our  love  and  choice, 
which  has  been  so  signally  blessed  of  God,  and  cherished  by  the  tears,  prayers,  and 
untiring  efforts  of  our  fathers,  lacerated  and  torn  asunder,  without  one  more  effort  to 
bind  up  and  heal  her  bleeding  wounds.  Therefore, 

"  '  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  proposed  convention  to  be  holden  at  Louis- 
ville, Kentucky,  May  1st,  1845;  and  will  elect  delegates  to  said  convention,  accord- 
ing to  the  ratio  agreed  upon  at  the  last  General  Conference  by  the  Southern 
delegates. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  the  conferences  in  the  non-slaveholding  States  and  territories, 
be,  and  they  are  hereby  respectfully  requested  to  elect  one  delegate  from  each  annual 
conference,  (either  in  conference  capacity  or  by  the  presiding  elders,)  to  meet  with 
one  delegate  from  each  of  the  slaveholding  conferences,  in  the  city  of  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May.  1845,  to  devise  some  plan  of  compromise.  And, 
in  the  event  that  the  non-slaveholding  conferences,  or  any  number  of  them,  which, 
with  the  slaveholding  conferences,  shall  make  a  respectable  majority  of  all  the  annual 
conferences,  shall  so  elect  delegates, — then,  and  in  that  case,  the  delegates  which  we 
will  elect  from  this  conference  to  the  Louisville  convention,  shall  appoint  one  of  their 
number  on  said  committee  of  compromise.  And  the  Southern  and  South-western 
conferences  are  respectfully  requested  to  agree  to  act  upon  this  plan. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  if  nothing  can  be  effected  on  the  foregoing  plan,  then  the  dele- 
gates from  this  conference  are  instructed  to  propose  to  the  Louisville  convention  the 
following  or  some  similar  plan,  as  the  basis  of  connexion  between  the  two  General 
Conferences — proposed  in  case  of  separate  organization  : — The  said  General  Con- 
ferences shall  appoint  an  equal  number  of  delegates,  (say  ten,)  who  shall  meet 
together  in  the  interim  of  the  General  Conferences,  to  whom  shall  be  referred  for 
adjustment  all  matters  of  difference  between  the  two  General  Conferences,  or  those 
Churches  over  which  they  exercise  jurisdiction,  their  decisions  or  propositions  for 
adjustment  to  be  referred  for  ultimate  action  to  the  General  Conferences  before 


96 

mentioned ;  and  when  both  General  Conferences  have  confirmed  their  decision,  it 
shall  he  final  and  binding  on  both  parties. 

••     /,'-'•-•.'.  That   if  both  the   foregoing  propositions   should  fail,  then   the  dele- 

iference  are  instructed  to  support  the  plan  of  separation  proposed 

'.id-  (Ji-noral  Conference.     And  in  so  doing,  we  positively  disavow  secession, 

but  declare  oursi  Ives,  by  cho  act  of  the  General  Conference,  a  co-ordinate  branch  of 

•copal  Church.     And  in  the  event  of  either  the  second  or  third 

proposition  obtaining,  the  delegates  from  this  conference  are  instructed  not  to  favour 

any even  the  least — alteration  of  our  excellent  Book  of  Discipline,  except  in  so  far 

as  mav  be  necessary  to  form  a  separate  organization. 

"  '  KcsolrrJ,  That  our  delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference  merit  the  wannest 
expression  of  our  thanks,  for  their  prudent,  yet  firm  course  in  sustaining  the  interests 
of  our  beloved  Methodism  in  the  South. 

'"Resolrcd,  That  we  warmly  commend  the  truly  Christian  and  impartial  course 
of  our  bishops  at  the  late  General  Conference,  and  we  affectionately  invite  all  our 
superintendents  to  attend  the  convention  to  be  holden  at  Louisville,  Kentucky. 

" '  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

" '  T.  K.  Catlett,  T.  Sullins,  A.  H.  Mathes,  Ephm.  E.  Wiley,  David  Fleming. 
C.  Fulton,  R.  M.  Stevens,  Jas.  Gumming,  0.  F.  Cunningham.'  " 

If  your  Honours  please,  I  will  now  endeavour  to  abridge  the  reading.  I  refer 
your  Honours  to  page  113.  There  was  action  by  the  Conferences  of  Kentucky  and 
Missouri,  Holston  and  Tennessee,  in  1845,  subsequent  to  the  Louisville  convention. 

"Next,  the  Holston  Conference  met." 

JUDGE  NELSON, — Where  is  the  Holston  Conference  1 

The  Hon.  THOMAS  EWING,  (who  being  counsel  for  the  defendants  in  a  correlative 
case  in  Ohio,  attended  the  trial  of  this  suit  to  watch  its  progress,) — It  embraces  East 
Tennessee,  part  of  Georgia,  and  other  contiguous  territory. 

MR.  LORD  continued  : — 

"  Next,  the  Holston  Conference  met :  Bishop  Andrew  presided,  and  the  confer- 
ence adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions,  with  but  one  negative  vote  ; 
and  the  brother  who  gave  the  negative  vote,  afterwards  gave  in  his  adhesion  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  took  work  of  the  conference  as  usual :  — 

"The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  offered  by  Samuel  Patten,  and 
adopted  by  a  vote  of  51  in  the  affirmative,  and  1  in  the  negative.  Several  members 
were  not  in  attendance  at  the  conference. 

"  '  Whereas,  the  long-continued  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did,  at  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church, 
held  in  the  city  of  New- York,  in  May,  1844,  result  in  the  adoption  of  certain  mea- 
sures by  that  body,  which  seriously  threatened  a  disruption  of  the  Church  ;  and  to 
avert  this  calamity,  said  General  Conference  did  advise  and  adopt  a  plan  contem- 
plating the  peaceful  separation  of  the  South  from  the  North ;  and  constituting  the 
conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States  the  sole  judges  of  the  necessity  of  such  sepa- 
ration :  and,  whereas,  the  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States,  in  the  exercise  of 
the  right  accorded  to  them  by  the  General  Conference,  did,  by  their  representatives 
in  convention  at  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May  last,  decide  that  separation  was  ne- 
cessary, and  proceeded  to  organize  themselves  into  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesias- 
tical connexion,  under  the  style  and  title  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
basing  their  claim  to  a  legitimate  relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  upon  their  unwavering  adherence  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church,  in  1844,  and  their  devotion  to  the  doc- 
trines, discipline,  and  usages  of  the  Church  as  they  received  them  from  their  fathers. 
'  '  And  as  the  Plan  of  Separation  provides  that  the  conferences  bordering  on  the 
geographical  line  of  separation,  shall  decide  their  relation  by  the  votes  of  the  majo- 
rity— as,  also,  that  ministers  of  every  grade  shall  make  their  election  North  or  South 
without  censure — therefore, 

'  '  1  Resolved,  That  we  now  proceed  to  determine  the  question  of  our  ecclesias- 
tical relation,  by  the  vote  of  the  conference. 


97 

"  '  2.  That  we,  the  members  of  the  Holston  Annual  Conference,  claiming  all  the 
rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  an  annual  conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  do  hereby  make  our  election  with,  and  adhere  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  '3.  That  while  we  thus  declare  our  adherence  to  .*he  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  we  repudiate  the  idea  of  secession  in  any  schismatic  or  offensive 
sense  of  the  phrase,  as  we  neither  give  up  nor  surrender  any  thing  which  we  have  re- 
ceived as  constituting  any  part  of  Methodism,  and  adhere  to  the  Southern  ecclesias- 
tical organization,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation, 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  its  ses- 
sion in  New- York,  in  May,  1844. 

"  '  4.  That  we  are  satisfied  with  our  Book  of  Discipline  as  it  is,  on  the  subject  of 
slavery  and  every  other  vital  feature  of  Methodism,  as  recorded  in  that  book  ;  and 
that  we  will  not  tolerate  any  changes  whatever,  except  such  verbal  or  unimportant 
alterations  as  may,  in  the  judgment  of  the  General  Conference,  facilitate  the  work  in 
which  we  are  engaged,  and  promote  uniformity  and  harmony  in  our  administration. 

"  '  5.  That  the  journals  of  our  present  session,  as  well  as  all  our  official  business, 
be  henceforth  conformed  in  style  and  title  to  our  ecclesiastical  relations. 

"  '  6.  That  it  is  our  desire  to  cultivate  and  maintain  fraternal  relations  with  our 
brethren  of  the  North.  And  we  do  most  sincerely  deprecate  the  continuance  of  pa- 
per warfare,  either  by  editors  or  correspondents,  in  our  official  Church  papers,  and 
devoutly  pray  for  the  speedy  return  of  peace  and  harmony  in  the  Church,  both  North 
and  South. 

"  '  7.  That  the  Holston  Annual  Conference  most  heartily  commend  the  course  of 
our  beloved  bishops,  Soule  and  Andrew,  during  the  recent  agitations  which  have  re- 
sulted in  the  territorial  and  jurisdictional  separation  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  that  we  tender  them  our  thanks  for  their  steady  adherence  to  principle 
and  the  best  interests  of  the  slave  population. 

"  '  DAVID  ADAMS.'  " 

I  will  not  -ead  all  the  resolutions  of  the  various  conferences,  but  refer  your  Honours 
to  them.  The  adhering  resolutions  of  the  Tennessee  Conference  will  be  found  on 
pp.  16,  17,  18,  and  19.  They  state  "that  the  actions  of  the  late  General  Confer- 
ence, together  with  the  entire  merits  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body,  leading  to  the 
contemplated  separation  of  the  Church,  have  been  fully  and  fairly  presented  to  our 
people,  and  that  both  the  ministry  and  membership  within  our  bounds  have,  with 
great  solicitude  and  prayerful  anxiety,  investigated  the  subject  in  its  various  rela- 
tions, principles,  and  bearings  ;"  and  that  they  consider  a  separate  organization  pro- 
per. I  refer  particularly  to  the  second  resolution,  which  is  on  page  17;  to  the  third 
resolution  on  the  same  page  ;  and  to  the  fourth  resolution  on  page  18,  as  indicating 
the  character  of  the  separation.  The  sixth  resolution  provides  for  a  General  Confer- 
ence, in  a  contingency  there  contemplated ;  and  the  seventh  resolution  shows  that 
they  adopted  the  same  mode  of  representation  in  the  General  Conference.  They  dis- 
sented from  the  medium  scheme  of  the  Holston  Conference,  as,  indeed,  they  all  did. 

The  next  is  the  Memphis  Conference,  page  20.  They  appointed  a  committee  to 
examine  and  report  upon  the  subject,  and  a  series  of  resolutions  was  reported  and 
adopted,  in  which,  amongst  other  things,  they  approved  the  holding  of  a  convention 
of  delegates  from  the  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South- Western 
delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference.  Those  resolutions  will  be  found  on  pp.  21, 
22,  and  23. 

The  resolutions  of  the  Mississippi  Conference  are  the  next  in  order,  page  24.  These 
documents  are  all  prefaced  with  a  short  statement,  that  an  investigation  and  exami- 
nation of  the  subject  had  been  made.  The  resolutions  commence  on  page  25.  The 
first  and  second  resolutions  declare  "  that  the  decision  of  the  late  General  Conference, 
in  the  cases  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew,  was  unauthorized  by  the 

7 


98 

Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  that  a  tame  submission  to  them, 
upon  the  part  of  the  Church  in  the  slave-holding  States,  would  prevent  our  access  to 
:he  slaves,  and  expose  us  to  suspicions  destructive  to  our  general  usefulness;"  and 
"  that  as  no  authorized  plan  of  compromise  has  been  suggested  by  the  North,  and  as 
all  the  propositions  made  by  the  Southern  delegates  were  rejected,  we  regard  a  sepa- 
ration as  inevitable,  and  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention  to  meet  in  Louisville." 
The  third  resolution  contains  instructions  to  their,  delegates  to  such  convention. 

The  next  is  the  Arkansas  Conference,  whose  resolutions  will  be  found  upon 
pp.  27,  28,  and  29. 

The  Virginia  resolutions  are  on  pp.  30,  31,  and  32. 

The  North  Carolina  Conference  adopted  the  report  of  their  committee,  in  which 
they  "  deeply  regret  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  the  course 
of  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference  renders  not  only  necessary  but  inevi- 
table." I  would  particularly  call  attention  to  what  they  say  on  page  34 : — 

"  Nothing  was  left  for  the  South  to  do,  but  to  pass  from  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
so  wayward  a  power,  to  the  regulations  and  government  of  our  old,  wholesome, 
and  Scriptural  Discipline.  This,  we  sorrow  when  we  say  it,  has  opened  a  great 
gulf — we  fear  an  impassable  gulf — between  the  North  and  the  South.  This  conso- 
lation, however,  if  no  other,  they  have — the  good  Book  of  Discipline,  containing  the 
distinctive  features  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  shall  still  lie  on  the  South 
side.  Compelled  by  circumstances  which  could  neither  be  alleviated  nor  controlled 
— which  neither  the  entreaties  of  kindness  nor  the  force  of  truth  could  successfully 
resist — we  hesitate  not  to  decide  on  being  forever  separate  from  those  whom  we  not 
only  esteem,  but  love.  Better  far  that  we  should  suffer  the  loss  of  union,  than  that 
thousands,  yea  millions  of  souls  should  perish." 

Their  resolutions  follow. 

The  proceedings  and  resolutions  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference,  which  will  be 
found  on  the  35th  and  subsequent  pages,  show  how  they  came  to  their  conclusion. 
Tt  appears  that  in  all  the  circuits  and  stations  of  that  conference,  and  in  other  meet- 
ings and  at  preaching  places  where  there  was  a  society,  the  subject  had  been  talked 
over,  and  on  all  occasions  there  had  been  but  one  voice  uttered,  one  opinion  ex- 
pressed. On  pages  36  and  37,  your  Honours  will  find  a  statement  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  came  to  their  conclusion  ;  and  considering  where  it  comes  from,  it  is  a  very 
moderate  document  indeed.  Their  resolutions  are  on  pages  38  and  39,  and  they 
show  that  they  cordially  agreed  in  the  necessity  of  a  separation.  I  would  very  gladly 
read  all  these  resolutions  if  it  were  consistent  with  a  proper  economy  of  time.  Their 
resolutions,  however,  show  that  the  subject  had  been  deliberately  considered. 

The  next  is  the  Indian  Mission  Conference,  which  lies,  I  believe,  west  of  the  Mis- 
sissippi. They  elected  delegates  to  represent  the  Indian  Mission  Conference  in  the 
contemplated  convention  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky. — Pp.  40,  41. 

The  Georgia  Conference  discuss  the  subject  fully  in  their  report,  pp.  42,  43,  44  ; 
and  on  pp.  45,  46,  47  are  their  resolutions,  by  which  they  authorize  the  Southern  or- 
ganization of  the  Church. 

The  resolutions  of  the  Florida  Conference  will  be  found  on  pp.  47,  48  ;  those  of 
the  Texas  Conference  on  pp.  49,  50 ;  and  those  of  the  Alabama  Conference,  on 
pp.  50,  51,  52,  and  53.  There  were  fifteen  or  sixteen  Southern  conferences  that 
appointed  delegates,  who  were  instructed  and  recommended  to  form  a  Southern  or- 
ganization of  the  Church.  They  met,  and  extracts  from  the  journal  of  their  pro- 
ceedings will  be  found  on  page  54  of  the  book  from  which  I  have  been  reading — 
Proofs,  No.  2.  Perhaps  it  is  proper  that  I  should  read  the  address  of  Bishop  Soule, 
whidh  he  delivered  to  that  Convention  on  the  second  day  of  its  session,  the  second 
of  May,  1845. 

7* 


99 

"  I  rise  on  the  present  occasion  to  offer  a  few  remarks  to  this  convention  of  minis- 
ters, under  the  influence  of  feelings  more  solemn  and  impressive  than  I  recollect  ever 
to  have  experienced  before.  The  occasion  is  certainly  one  of  no  ordinary  interest 
and  solemnity.  I  am  deeply  impressed  with  a  conviction  of  the  important  results  of 
your  deliberations  and  decisions  in  relation  to  that  numerous  body  of  Christians  and 
Christian  ministers  you  here  represent,  and  to  the  country  at  large.  And  knowing, 
as  I  do,  the  relative  condition  of  the  vast  community  where  your  acts  must  be  exten- 
sively felt,  I  cannot  but  feel  a  deep  interest  in  the  business  of  the  convention,  both  as 
it  respects  yourselves,  and  the  millions  who  must  be  affected  by  your  decisions. 
With  such  views  and  feelings,  you  will  indulge  me  in  an  expressisn  of  confident  hope 
that  all  your  business  will  be  conducted  with  the  greatest  deliberation,  and  with  that 
purity  of  heart,  and  moderation  of  temper,  suitable  to  yourselves,  as  a  body  of  Chris- 
tian ministers,  and  to  the  important  concerns  which  have  called  you  together  in  this 
city. 

"  The  opinion  which  I  formed  at  the  close  of  the  late  General  Conference,  that  the 
proceedings  of  that  body  would  result  in  a  division  of  the  Church,  was  not  induced 
by  the  impulse  of  excitement  ;  but  was  predicated  of  principles  and  facts,  after  the 
most  deliberate  and  mature  consideration.  That  opinion  I  have  freely  expressed. 
And  however  deeply  I  have  regretted  such  a  result,  believing  it  to  be  inevitable,  my 
efforts  have  been  made,  not  to  prevent  it,  but  rather  that  it  be  attended  with  the 
least  injury,  and  the  greatest  amount  of  good  which  the  case  would  admit.  I  was 
not  alone  in  this  opinion.  A  number  of  aged  and  influential  ministers  entertained 
the  same  views.  And,  indeed,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  how  any  one,  intimately 
acquainted  with  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  the  relative  position  of  the  North  and 
South,  could  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion.  Nothing  has  transpired  since  the  close 
of  the  General  Conference  to  change  the  opinion  I  then  formed  ;  but  subsequent 
events  have  rather  confirmed  it.  In  view  of  the  certainty  of  the  issue,  and  at  the 
same  time  ardently  desirous  that  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Church  might  be  in 
peace  and  harmony  within  their  own  respective  bounds,  and  cultivate  the  spirit  of 
Christian  fellowship,  brotherly  kindness,  and  charity  for  each  other,  I  cannot  but 
consider  it  an  auspicious  event  that  the  sixteen  annual  conferences,  represented  in 
this  convention,  have  acted  with  such  extraordinary  unanimity  in  the  measures  they 
have  taken  in  the  premises.  In  the  Southern  conferences  which  I  have  attended,  I 
do  not  recollect  that  there  has  been  a  dissenting  voice  with  respect  to  the  necessity 
of  a  separate  organization  ;  and  although  their  official  acts  in  deciding  the  important 
question,  have  been  marked  with  that  clearness  and  decision  which  should  afford 
satisfactory  evidence  that  they  have  acted  under  a  solemn  conviction  of  duty  to 
Christ,  and  to  the  people  of  their  charge,  they  have  been  equally  distinguished  by 
moderation  and  candour.  And  as  far  as  I  have  been  informed,  all  the  other  confer- 
ences have  pursued  a  similar  course. 

"  It  is  ardently  to  be  desired  that  the  same  unanimity  may  prevail  in  the  counsels 
of  this  convention  as  distinguished,  in  such  a  remarkable  manner,  the  views,  and  de- 
liberations, and  decisions  of  your  constituents.  When  it  is*recollected  that  it  is  not 
only  for  yourselves,  and  the  present  ministry  and  membership  of  the  conferences 
you  represent,  that  you  are  assembled  on  this  occasion,  but  that  millions  of  the 
present  race,  and  generations  yet  unborn,  may  be  affected,  in  their  most  essential 
interests,  by  the  results  of  your  deliberations,  it  will  occur  to  you  how  important  it  is 
that  you  should  '  do  all  things  as  in  the  immediate  presence  of  God.'  Let  all  your 
acts,  dear  brethren,  be  accompanied  with  much  prayer  for  that  wisdom  which  is  from 
above. 

"  While  you  are  thus  impressed  with  the  importance  and  solemnity  of  the  subject 
which  has  occasioned  the  convention,  and  of  the  high  responsibility  under  which  you 
act,  I  am  confident  you  will  cultivate  the  spirit  of  Christian  moderation  and  forbear- 
ance ;  and  that  in  all  your  acts  you  will  keep  strictly  within  the  limits  and  provi- 
sions of  the  '  Plan  of  Separation '  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  with  great 
unanimity  and  apparent  Christian  kindness.  I  can  have  no  doubt  of  the  firm 
adherence  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church  in  the  conferences  you  repre- 
sent, to  the  doctrine,  rules,  order  of  government,  and  forms  of  worship  contained  in 
our  excellent  Book  of  Discipline.  For  myself,  I  stand  upon  the  basis  of  Methodism 
as  contained  in  this  book,  and  from  it  I  intend  never  to  be  removed  I  cannot  be 
insensible  to  the  expression  of  your  confidence  in  the  resolution  you  have  unani- 
mously adopted,  requesting  me  to  preside  over  the  convention  in  conjunction  with  my 


100 

colleagues.  And  after  having  weighed  the  subject  with  careful  deliberation,  I  have 
resolved  to  accept  your  invitation,  and  discharge  the  duties  of  the  important  trust  to 
the  best  of  my  ability.  My  excellent  colleague,  Bishop  Andrew,  is  of  the  same 
mind,  and  will  cordially  participate  in  the  duties  of  the  chair. 

"  I  am  requested  to  state  to  the  convention,  that  our  worthy  and  excellent  col- 
league, Bishop  Morris,  believes  it  to  be  his  duty  to  decline  a  participation  in  the 
presidential  duties.  He  assigns  such  reasons  for  so  doing  as  are,  in  the  judgment 
of  his  colleagues,  perfectly  satisfactory  ;  and  it  is  presumed  they  would  be  con- 
sidered in  the  same  light  by  the  convention.  In  conclusion,  I  trust  that  all  things 
will  be  done  in  that  spirit  which  will  be  approved  of  God ;  and  devoutly  pray  that 
your  acts  may  result  in  the  advancement  of  the  Redeemer's  kingdom,  and  the  salva- 
tion of  the  souls  of  men." 

Bishop  Soule  then  took  the  chair,  and  from  the  record  of  their  proceedings  I  read 
the  following  : — 

"  On  motion  of  J.  Early  and  \V.  A.  Smith,  it  was 

"  •  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  two  members,  from  each  annual  conference 
represented  in  this  convention,  be  appointed,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  take  into  con- 
sideration the  propriety  and  necessity  of  a  Southern  organization,  according  to  the 
Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference,  together  with  the  acts 
of  the  several  annual  conferences  on  this  subject,  and  report  the  best  method  of 
securing  the  objects  contemplated  in  the  appointment  of  this  convention.' 

"  MONDAY  MORNING,  MAY  5. — On  motion  of  Dr.  William  Winans,  it  was 

"  '  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization  be  instructed  to  inquire  whether 
or  not  anything  has  transpired,  during  the  past  year,  to  render  it  possible  to  main- 
tain the  unity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  under  the  same  General  Confer- 
ence jurisdiction,  without  the  ruin  of  Southern  Methodism.' 

"  On  motion  of  Benjamin  M.  Drake,  it  was 

•• '  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Organization  be,  and  are  hereby  instructed 
to  inquire  into  the  propriety  of  reporting  resolutions  in  case  a  division  should  take 
place,  leaving  the  way  open  for  re-union  on  terms  which  shall  not  compromise  the 
interests  of  the  Southern,  and  which  shall  meet,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  views  of  the 
Northern  portion  of  the  Church.' 

"  Dr.  William  A.  Smith  and  Dr.  Lovick  Pierce  presented  the  following  re- 
solution, which,  at  their  request,  was  laid  on  the  table,  to  be  taken  up  on  to-morrow 
morning. 

" '  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  the  Southern 
and  South-western  states,  in  General  Convention  assembled,  That  we  cannot  sanction 
the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  by  remaining  under  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  that  body, 
without  deep  and  lasting  injury  to  the  interests  of  the  Church  and  the  country. ;  we, 
therefore,  hereby  instruct  the  Committee  on  Organization,  that  if.  upon  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  whole  subject,  they  find  that  there  is  no  reasonable  ground  to  hope 
that  the  Northern  majority  will  recede  from  their  position  and  give  some  safe  guar- 
antee for  the  future  security  of  our  civil  and  ecclesiastical  rights,  they  report  in 
favour  of  a  separation  from  the  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  of  the  said  General  Con- 
ference.' 

"  WEDNESDAY  MORNING,  MAY  14. — The  resolution  of  Dr.  Smith  was  then  taken 
up,  and  after  a  few  remarks  in  its  support  by  Joseph  Boyle  and  Jesse  Green,  of  the 
Missouri  Conference,  and  Littleton  Fowler,  of  the  Texas  Conference,  was  adopted, 
with  one  dissenting  voice. 

"SATURDAY  MORNING,  MAY  17. — On  motion  of  John  Early,  of  the  Virginia  Con- 
ference, the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization  was  taken  up,  and  the  conven- 
tion resolved  to  act  on  it  by  yeas  and  nays — sick  and  absent  members  being  permitted 
to  enter  their  votes  at  some  subsequent  period  during  the  season. 

"  The  first  resolution  was  read,  and  on  motion  of  John  Early,  was  adopted  as 
follows : — 

"  '  Be  it  resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  General  Convention  assembled, 
That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and  necessary,  to  erect  the  annual  conferences  repre- 
sented in  this  convention,  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  separate  from  the 


101 

jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at 
present  constituted  ;  and  accordingly,  we,  the  delegates  of  said  annual  conferences, 
acting  under  the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1844,  do  solemnly  declare  the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised  over  said  annual  con- 
ferences, by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  entirely 
dissolved ;  and  that  said  annual  conferences  shall  be,  and  they  hereby  are  constituted, 
a.  separate  ecclesiastical  connexion,  under  the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation  afore- 
said, and  based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  compre- 
hending the  doctrines  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and  economical  rules  and 
regulations  of  said  Discipline,  except  only,  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may  be 
necessary  to  a  distinct  organization,  and  to  be  known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the 
METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH.' — Yeas  94;  nays  3. 

li  The  second  resolution  was  then  read,  and,  on  motion  of  Thomas  Crowder,  of  the 
Virginia  Conference,  adopted  as  follows  : — 

" '  Resolved,  That  we  cannot  abandon  or  compromise  the  principles  of  action, 
upon  which  we  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South ;  nevertheless,  cherish- 
ing a  sincere  desire  to  maintain  Christian  union  and  fraternal  intercourse  with  the 
Church,  North,  we  shall  always  be  ready,  kindly  and  respectfully,  to  entertain,  and 
duly  and  carefully  consider,  any  proposition  or  plan,  having  for  its  object  the  union 
•  of  the  two  great  bodies,  in  the  North  and  South,  whether  such  proposed  union  be 
jurisdictional  or  conncxional.'' — Yeas,  97  ;  nays,  none. 

"  The  Committee  on  Organization  then  presented  an  additional  report,  which  was 
amended  and  adopted,  in  the  following  form  : — 

"  '  1 .  Resolved,  That  this  convention  request  the  bishops,  presiding  at  the  ensuing 
session  of  the  border  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  in- 
corporate into  the  aforesaid  conferences  any  societies  or  stations  adjoining  the  line  of 
division,  provided  such  societies  or  stations,  by  a  majority  of  the  members,  according 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference, 
request  such  an  arrangement. 

"  '2.  Resolved.  That  answer  2d  of  3d  section,  chapter  1st  of  the  Book  of  Discip- 
line, be  so  altered  and  amended  as  to  read  as  follows : — 

"  '  The  General  Conference  shall  meet  on  the  first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  1846,  in  the  town  of  Petersburg,  Virginia,  and  thenceforward  in  the  month  of 
April  or  May,  once  in  four  years  successively  ;  and  in  such  place  and  on  such  day 
as  shall  be  fixed  on  by  the  preceding  General  Conference,  &c. 

"'3.  Resolved  further,  That  the  first  answer  in  the  same  chapter  be  altered  by 
striking  out  the  word  '  twenty-one,'  and  inserting  in  its  place  fourteen.' — Yeas,  97; 
nays,  none. 

'•  MONDAY  MORXIXG,  MAY  19. — The  Committee  on  Organization  then  made  an 
additional  report,  as  follows  : — 

" '  The  Committee  on  Organization  beg  respectfully  to  report  the  following 
resolutions  for  adoption  by  the  convention  : — 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  That  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  be,  and  they  are  hereby  respect- 
fully and  cordially  requested  by  this  convention,  to  unite  with  and  become  regular 
and  constitutional  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  upon  the  basis 
of  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference. 

" '  2.  Resolved,  That  should  any  portion  of  an  annual  conference  on  the  line  of 
separation,  not  represented  in  this  convention,  adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  at  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, and  elect  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  in  1846,  upon 
the  basis  of  representation  adopted  by  this  convention,  they  shall  be  accredited  as 
members  of  the  General  Conference. 

"  '  3.  Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to 
prepare  and  report  to  the  General  Conference  of  1846,  a  revised  copy  of  the  present 
Discipline,  with  such  changes  as  are  necessary  to  conform  it  to  the  organization  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Respectfully  submitted. 

"'  JOHN  EARLY,  Chairman.' 

"  The  first  resolution  was  then  adopted  : — Yeas,  95  ;  nays,  none  ;  absent,  5." 

Then  follows  the  adhesion  of  Bishop  Soule,  or  rather  his  letter,  which  it  is  not 
necessary  to  read  ;  and  a  similar  letter  from  Bishop  Andrew,  both  of  which  may  be 


102 

considered  as  read  and  in  evidence.  Neither  do  I  intend  to  read  the  Pastoral 
Address  which  was  prepared  by  that  convention,  beginning  on  page  62  ;  but  I  wish 
it  to  be  considered  as  read,  as  a  declaration  of  the  character  of  the  new  organization 

There  is  .-mother  document,  beginning  on  page  67,  which,  if  time  would  permit,  I 
should  with  pleasure  read.  It  is  their  manifesto ;  and  able  as  are  the  other  papers,  I 
consider  this  one  of  the  most  able.  By  this  document,  which  is  understood  to  be 
the  production  of  the  pen  of  the  late  Bishop  Bascom,  nearly  all  the  argument  on  our 
vide  may  be  considered  as  anticipated.  It  is  a  very  long  document,  extending  from 
page  67  to  page  101,  and  contains  a  full  discussion  of  the  case.  I  crave  your 
Honours'  attention  to  this  report,  as  being,  if  nothing  else,  an  argument  which  sets 
ihe  case  in  a  clear  and  strong  light. 

The  Southern  Church  having  been  organized,  the  bishops — not  of  the  Southern 
but  of  the  Northern  Church — met  in  council  on  the  2d  of  July,  1845,  in  New- York. 
Your  Honours  will  recollect  that  the  organization  of  the  Church,  South,  was  com- 
pleted in  May ;  and  in  July  the  bishops  met  in  council,  of  whose  proceedings  I  will 
read  an  extract  from  pp.  101, 102,  book  of  Proofs,  No.  2  : — 

"  This  council  met  in  the  city  of  New-York,  July  2d,  1845,  and  was  attended  by 
Bishops  Hedding,  Waugh,  Morris,  and  Janes.  Bishop  Hamline  sent  his  opinion  in 
writing  on  the  points  to  be  acted  on  by  the  council,  Bishop  Soule  did  not  attend,  and 
Bishop  Andrew,  being  suspended,  was  not  invited.  Besides  agreeing  on  a  new  plan 
of  visitation,  the  bishops  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  intended  for  the  govern- 
ment of  their  own  administration : — 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  That  the  plan  reported  by  the  select  committee  of  nine  at  the  last 
General  Conference,  and  adopted  by  that  body,  in  regard  to  a  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connexion,  should  such  a  course  be  found  necessary  by  the  annual  conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  is  regarded  by  us  as  of  binding  obligation  in  the  premises,  so  far 
as  our  administration  is  concerned. 

"  '  2.  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  ascertain  fairly  the  desire  and  purpose  of  those 
societies  bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  in  regard  to  their  adherence  to  the  Church, 
North  or  South,  due  notice  should  be  given  of  the  time,  place,  and  object  of  the 
meeting  for  the  above  purpose,  at  which  a  chairman  and  secretary  should  be  ap- 
pointed, and  the  sense  of  all  the  members  present  be  ascertained,  and  the  same  be 
forwarded  to  the  bishop  who  may  preside  at  the  ensuing  annual  conferences  ;  or  for- 
ward to  such  presiding  bishop  a  written  request  to  be  recognised  and  have  a  preacher 
sent  them,  with  the  names  of  the  majority  appended  thereto. 

"  '  A  true  copy.  EDMUND  S.  JANES,  Sec'y.'  " 

Then  appears  Bishop  Soule's  letter  of  invitation  to  Bishop  Andrew  to  perform 
episcopal  functions,  and  Bishop  Andrew's  reply,  accepting  the  office  of  bishop  in  that 
Church.  They  are  merely  necessary  to  show  the  organization  of  the  Church  as  an 
episcopal  Church.  Your  Honours  will  consider  them  as  read  for  that  purpose 

There  is  then  the  action  of  the  conferences  of  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Holston,  and 
Tennessee,  in  1845,  subsequent  to  the  Louisville  convention. — P.  108.  I  will  not 
read  them,  but  your  Honours  will  take  them  as  read,  showing  the  completeness  of 
its  organization.  All  these  documents  are  of  the  same  character,  showing  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  organization  of  the  new  Church. 

I  next  refer  your  Honours  to  page  117,  where  you  will  find  this  title  : — 

'•  9.  The.  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  at  Petersburgh,  Va.,  in  May,  1846,  printed.  (To  be  referred  to.)" 

There  is  here  a  reference  to  the  conference  journal,  South.  It  was  set  up  in  the 
answer  of  the  defendants,  that  this  suit  is  not  brought  by  the  authority  of  the  Church, 
South.  I  therefore  refer  to  the  journal  of  that  Conference,  to  show  that  this  suit  was 
authorized.  It  is  a  mere  formal  matter  of  proof. 


103 

On  page  96  of  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  held  in  1846,  at  Petersburg,  in  the  State  of  Virginia,  will  be  found 
the  following  : — 

"  The  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Finance,  in  reference  to  the  appointment  of 
commissioners,  being  taken  up,  the  blank  in  the  fourth  resolution,  on  motion  of  Dr. 
Smith,  was  filled  with  the  name  of  John  Early.  The  report  was  then  adopted,  as 
follows,  viz.  : — 

"  '  The  Finance  Committee  submit  their  Fourth  Report,  as  follows  : — 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  General  Conference  assembled,  That  three  commis- 
sioners be  appointed  in  accordance  with  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1844,  to  act  in  concert 
with  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to 
estimate  the  amount  due  to  the  South,  according  to  the  aforesaid  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration ;  and  to  adjust  and  settle  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  division  of  the  Church 
property  and  funds,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  with  full  powers  to 
carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangement  with  regard  to  said  division. 

" '  2.  Resolved,  That  the  commissioners  of  the  South  shall  forthwith  notify  the 
commissioners  and  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  their  ap- 
pointment, and  of  their  readiness  to  adjust  and  settle  the  matters  aforesaid  ;  and 
.should  no  such  settlement  be  effected  before  the  session  of  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1848,  said  commissioners  shall  have  power 
and  authority,  for  and  in  behalf  of  this  Conference,  to  attend  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  settle  and  adjust  all  questions  involving  pro- 
perty or  funds,  which  may  be  pending  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  '  3.  Resolved,  That  should  the  commissioners  appointed  by  this  General  Confer- 
ence, after  proper  effort,  fail  to  effect  a  settlement  as  above,  then,  and  in  that  case, 
they  shall  be,  and  are  hereby  authorized,  to  take  such  measures  as  may  best  secure 
the  just  and  equitable  claims  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  the  pro- 
perty and  funds  aforesaid. 

"  '  4.  Resolved,  That  John  Early  be,  and  he  is  hereby  authorized,  to  act  as  the  agent 
or  appointee  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  conformity  to  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  to  receive,  and  hold  in  trust, 
for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  South,  all  property  and 
funds  of  every  description  which  may  be  paid  over  to  him  by  the  agents  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church. 

"  '  5.  Resolved,  That  the  commissioners,  appointee,  and  book-agent,  report  to  the 
next  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  '  6.  Resolved,  That  should  a  vacancy  occur  in  the  board  of  commissioners,  or  in 
the  office  of  appointee,  hereinbefore  provided  for,  by  death  or  otherwise,  in  the  in- 
terim of  the  General  Conference,  then,  and  in  that  case,  the  remaining  members  of 
the  board  shall  have  power  to  fill  such  vacancy,  with  the  approbation  of  one  or  more 
of  the  bishops.  \V.  A.  SMITH,  Chairman.''  " 

The  other  documents  in  this  case  are  also  merely  formal,  being  an  application  of 
our  commissioners  to  their  commissioners — page  117  of  second  of  Proofs — dated 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  August  25th,  1846  ;  and  their  reply,  dated  New- York,  October  14. 
1846.  Your  Honours  will  see  that  the  Northern  commissioners  took  what  appears 
to  us  to  be  very  strange  ground  on  the  subject.  They  declined  having  anything  to 
do  with  it.  Then  the  Southern  commissioners  appeared  at  Pittsburgh,  and  addressed 
a  communication  to  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  asking  for  a  settlement — pago 
124.  To  this  no  reply  was  received.  They  then  addressed  another  letter,  of  the 
18th  May,  1848 — page  125 — which  letter,  and  the  reply  which  they  received,  I 
will  read. 


104 

"  12.   The  letter  of  H.  B.  Bascom,  and  others,  commissioner*,   to  N.  Bangs,  and 

others,  dated  Pittsburgh,  May  18th,  1848,  and  the  reply  thereto,  dated  Pittsburgh, 

May  20th,  1848. 

"  '  PITTSBURGH,  18th  May,  1848. 

"  'The  undersigned,  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  ap- 
pointed by  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church,  in  accordance  with  the  Plan  of 
Separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
in  1844,  would  respectfully  represent  to  the  Rev.  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck,  and 
James  B.  Finley,  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that 
it  is  important  their  stay  in  the  city  should  not  be  prolonged  beyond  the  period  neces- 
sary to  accomplish,  as  far  as  may  be  found  practicable,  the  objects  of  their  commis- 
sion ;  and  with  a  view  to  a  correct  decision  in  the  case,  the  undersigned  beg  leave  to 
inquire — 1st.  Whether  as  commissioners  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  to  act  in  concert  with  a  similar  board  of  commissioners  in  behalf  of  the  Church, 
South,  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  you  regard  yourselves  as  authorized  to 
act  in  the  premises,  under  the  authority  above,  and  if  so,  in  what  form  1  2d.  Should 
your  answer  to  this  inquiry  be  in  the  negative,  we  would  respectfully  ask,  have  you 
anything  to  propose  to  us,  as  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  designed  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  having 
reference  to  the  division  of  the  Church  property?  Very  truly  and  respectfully, 

"  '  H.  B.  BASCOM," 
A.  L.  P.  GREEN, 
C.  B.  PARSONS. 

"  'REV.  N.  BANGS,  GEORGE  PECK,  and  JAS.  B.  FINLEY.' 

"  '  PITTSBURGH,  May  20th,  1848. 

"  '  Rev.  Messrs.  H.  B.  Bascom,  D.D.,  A.  L.  P.  Green,   and  C.  B.  Parsons: — 
"  '  GENTLEMEN, — The  undersigned  have  the  honour  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  communication  of  the  18th  inst.,  and  would  respectfully  reply  : — 

"  '  1.  That  the  conditions  upon  which  their  powers,  as  '  commissioners,'  appointed 
by  the  General  Conference  at  its  session  of  1844,  were  made  to  depend,  having  failed, 
they  have  not,  and  never  had,  power  to  act  in  the  matter  in  question. 

"  '  2.  In  accordance  with  the  above  view,  they  would  respectfully  say  that  they 
have  nothing  to  "  propose"  to  you  touching  these  matters.  With  sentiments  of 
esteem,  yours,  "  '  GEORGE  PECK, 

JAMES  B.  FINLEY.'  " 

We  also  produce  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  with  a 
view  of  showing  that  there  is  no  difference  in  doctrine,  organization,  or  discipline 
of  the  Church.  There  is  only  one  note,  I  believe,  added  on  the  subject  of  slavery. 
I  believe  it  is  not  worthy  of  notke,  and  yet,  perhaps,  in  fairness  I  ought  to  state  it. 
I  will  show  it  to  your  Honours  aftenvards.  I  need  not  now  detain  the  Court  to 
state  it. 

This,  your  Honours,  is  the  evidence  on  our  part. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — Is  there  any  evidence  to  be  offered  on  the  part  of  the  defend- 
ants? 

MR.  EWING, — Yes,  sir. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — How  long  will  it  occupy  I 

MR.  EWING, — Perhaps  we  can  read  it  in  half  an  hour,  or  a  little  more. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 


105 


[NOTE  BY  THE  REPORTER. — As  Mr.  Lord  referred  to  various  documents,  pointing 
the  Court  to  the  pages  where  they  may  be  found,  and  desired  that  they  might  be 
considered  as  read,  without  consuming  the  time  necessary  to  read  them,  there  is 
great  propriety,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Reporter,  in  the  incorporation  of  them  in  this 
report.  They  are,  therefore,  appended.  The  first  document  to  which  he  referred, 
comprises  the  report  and  resolutions  from  the  Committee  on  Separation,  which  were 
adopted  by  the  Tennessee  Conference.]  Second  of  Proofs,  pp.  16,  17, 18, 19,  and  20. 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  proposed  division  of  the  Methodiet 
Episcopal  Church  into  two  separate  and  distinct  General  Conference  jurisdictions, 
and  kindred  subjects,  having  had  the  same  under  mature  consideration,  beg  leave  to 
submit  the  following  : — 

"  Apprised  as  we  are,  that  the  actions  of  the  late  General  Conference,  together 
with  the  entire  merits  of  the  proceedings  of  that  body,  leading  to  the  contemplated 
separation  of  the  Church,  have  been  fully  and  fairly  presented  to  our  people,  and 
that  both  the  ministry  and  membership  within  our  bounds  have,  with  great  solicitude 
and  prayerful  anxiety,  investigated  the  subject  in  its  various  relations,  principles, 
and  bearings,  we  deem  it  entirely  inexpedient  at  present  to  enter  into  detail  or  to 
prepare  an  elaborate  investigation  of  the  very  important  matters  committed  to  us ; 
therefore  your  committee  present  the  result  of  their  deliberations  to  the  conference, 
by  the  offering  for  your  consideration  and  adoption,  the  following  resolutions  : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  candid  and  deliberate  judgment  of  this  conference, 
that  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  by  which  Bishop  Andrew  was  virtually 
deposed,  as  well  as  their  action  in  confirming  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  is  not  sustained  by  the  Discipline  of 
our  Church,  and  that  we  consider  such  extra-judicial  proceedings  as  constituting  a 
highly-dangerous  precedent. 

"  2.  That  under  the  great  affliction  caused  by  these  unfortunate  proceedings,  we 
did  most  ardently  hope  and  pray  that  the  calamitous  consequences  might  have  been 
averted.  But  since  the  only  plausible  plan  of  reconciliation,  the  proposition  unani- 
mously recommended  by  our  beloved  superintendents,  was  put  down  by  the  majority 
in  the  late  General  Conference,  we  honestly  confess  we  see  at  present  no  prospect 
to  avoid  a  separation. 

"  3.  That  we  approve  the  holding  a  convention  of  delegates  from  all  the  con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of  May 
next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates 
in  the  late  General  Conference ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by 
said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  conference — be, 
and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted  ;  and  this  conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  pro- 
posed convention  upon  said  basis. 

"  4.  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the  delegates  of  this 
conference  are  required  to  act  under  the  following  instruction, — to  wit,  that  the 
Southern  and  South-western  conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  they  shall  be  recognised  in  law,  and  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  jurisdiction.  And, 
furthermore,  as  we  are  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  as  it  is,  this 
conference  instruct  its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favour  any  change  in  said  Dis- 
cipline by  said  convention ;  except  in  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  conform  it  in  its 
economical  arrangements  to  the  new  organization. 

"  5.  That  unless  we  can  be  well  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  ministry  and  mem- 
bership can  be  effectually  secured  according  to  Discipline  against  future  aggres- 
sion, and  full  reparation  be  made  for  past  injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated 
division  unavoidable. 

"  6.  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  representing  the  annual  conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to  assemble 
in  the  city  of  Louisville,  the  first  day  of  May  next,  proceed  to  a  separate  organiza- 
tion, as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then,  and  in  that 
event,  the  convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference,  author- 
ized and  appointed  by  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Southern  division  of 


106 

the  Church  in  the  United  States,  as  possessing  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  subject  to  the  same  constitutional  limitations  and  restrictions. 

"  7.  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action  of  the  conven- 
tion, as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take  place,  the 
ratio  of  representation,  as  now  found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every 
twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the  number  of  constitutional  delegates, 
taking  and  accrediting  as  such  the  proper  number  from  the  annual  conference  first 
«'lecti'd  in  order ;  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of 
the  convention  to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of  the  General  Conference  proper, 
should  the  convention  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Proridcd. 
nevertheless,  that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be  excluded  from 
the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent, 
then  any  delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  member 
or  members  of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat 
or  seats  of  such  absent  delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

"  8.  That  we  do  most  cordially  approve  of  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  the  late 
General  Conference,  in  the  premises,  and  that  we  tender  them  our  sincere  thanks 
for  their  faithful  and  independent  discharge  of  duty  in  a  trying  crisis. 

"  9.  That  the  secretary  of  this  conference  be  directed  to  have  the  foregoing 
preamble  and  resolutions  published  in  the  South- Western  Christian  Advocate. 

"  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  F.  E.  Pitts,  Joshua  Boucher,  F.  G.  Ferguson,  G.  W.  Dye,  P.  P.  Neely,  W.  D. 
F.  Sawrie.  Jno.  W.  Hanner,  A.  F.  Driskill,  R.  L.  Andrews." 

The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  conference  : — 
" '  Resolved,  That  this  conference  invite  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  to  attend  the  convention  at  Louisville,  Kentucky. 

" '  Resolved,  That  the  preacher  in  charge  of  each  circuit  and  station,  shall  lift  a 
collection  before  the  first  day  of  April  next,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  our  delegates  to 
the  convention  at  Louisville,  Kentucky.  The  funds  so  collected  shall  be  handed 
over  to  the  nearest  delegate,  or  forwarded  to  the  editor  of  the  South- Western 
Christian  Advocate,  and  shall  be  equally  distributed  among  the  delegates  in  proportion 
to  their  expenses  ;  and  should  any  surplus  accrue,  it  shall  be  returned  to  the  conference 
at  its  next  session,  and  shall  be  applied  as  the  other  conference  funds,  in  making  up 
the  deficiency  of  our  preachers,  &c.'  " 

On  the  resolution  of  the  Holston  Conference,  suggesting  a  plan  of  a  compromise, 
it  was  unanimously 

"  '  Resolved,  That  sympathizing  as  we  do  with  our  brethren  of  the  Holston  Con- 
ference in  the  feeling  of  deep  regret  for  the  necessity  of  a  separation  of  the  Southern 
portion  of  our  Church  from  the  Northern,  and  willing  as  we  would  be  to  preserve  the- 
union  of  our  beloved  Church,  upon  principles  safe  and  just  to  ourselves  and  conser- 
vative of  the  Discipline  ;  yet,  inasmuch  as  any  proposition  for  a  compromise  of  exist- 
ing difficulties,  which  might  be  proposed  with  any  probability  of  success,  should  come 
in  an  authoritative  manner  from  the  Northern  section  of  the  Church,  and  believing 
the  plan  proposed  by  the  Holston  Conference,  would,  if  generally  adopted  by  the 
South,  utterly  fail  to  meet  the  object  contemplated,  therefore  we  cannot  agree  to  the 
proposition.'  " 

The  proceedings  of  the  Memphis  Conference,  to  which  the  learned  gentleman  re- 
ferred, are  as  follows  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  division  of  the  Church 
into  two  separate  General  Conference  jurisdictions,  and  all  matters  connected  there- 
with, after  solemnly  and  prayerfully  deliberating  upon  the  same,  present  the  follow- 
ing report : — Inasmuch  as  the  conference  is  presumed  to  be  well  informed  on  the 
merits  of  the  subject,  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  consume  time,  by  entering  into  an 
extended  and  argumentative  investigation  of  the  various  relations,  principles,  and 
bearings  of  the  same,  but  proceed  at  once  to  offer  the  following  resolutions  for  the 
action  of  the  conference  : — 

"  Resolved,  1.  That  it  is  the  deliberate  judgment  of  this  conference,  that  the  ac- 
tion of  the  late  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  virtually  dc- 


107 

posing  Bishop  Andrew,  and  also  their  action  in  affirming  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding,  are  not  sustained  by  the 
Discipline  of  our  Church,  and  that  we  consider  these  proceedings  as  constituting  a 
highly-dangerous  precedent. 

"  2.  That  we  deeply  regret  the  prospect  of  division  growing  out  of  these  proceed- 
ings, and  do  most  sincerely  and  devoutly  pray  to  the  great  Head  of  the  Church,  that 
some  effectual  means,  not  inconsistent  with  the  interests  of  the  cause  of  Christ,  or 
the  honour  of  all  concerned,  may  be  suggested  and  devised,  by  which  so  great  a  ca- 
lamity may  be  averted,  and  our  long-cherished  union  preserved  and  perpetuated. 

"  3.  That  we  approve  the  holding  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  conferences 
in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of 
May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  dele- 
gates in  the  late  General  Conference  ;  and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed 
by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members  of  conference — be, 
and  the  same  is  hereby  adopted  ;  and  that  this  conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the 
proposed  convention  on  said  basis. 

"  4.  That  should  a  division  be  found  to  be  indispensable,  the  delegates  of  this  con- 
ference are  hereby  required  to  act  under  the  following  instructions,  to  wit :  that  the 
Southern  and  South- Western  conferences  shall  not  be  regarded  as  having  by  such 
division  seceded  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  but  they  shall  be  recognised 
in  law,  and  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  as  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  simply  acting  under  a  separate  juris- 
diction. And  further,  that  being  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  as 
it  now  is,  this  conference  instructs  its  delegates  not  to  support  or  favour  any  change 
in  said  Discipline  by  said  convention,  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  perfect  a  South- 
ern organization. 

"  5.  That  unless  we  can  be  assured  that  the  rights  of  our  ministry  and  member- 
ship will  be  effectually  secured,  according  to  Discipline,  against  future  aggressions, 
and  full  reparation  be  made  for  past  injury,  we  shall  deem  the  contemplated  division 
unavoidable. 

"  6.  That  should  the  proposed  convention,  representing  the  annual  conferences  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to  assemble 
at  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate  organi- 
zation, as  contingently  provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions ;  then,  and  in  that 
event,  the  convention  shall  be  regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference,  autho- 
rized and  appointed  by  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Southern  division  of  the 
Church,  and  as  possesssing  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  sub- 
ject to  the  same  restrictions,  limitations,  and  restraints. 

"  7.  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action  of  the  conven- 
tion, as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take  place,  the 
ratio  of  representation  as  it  now  stands  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for  every 
twenty-one,  shall  prevail,  and  determine  the  constitutional  delegates,  taking  as  such 
the  proper  number  from  each  annual  conference,  first  elected  in  order,  and  that  the 
remaining  delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  convention  to  deliberate,  but  not 
members  of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the  convention  proceed  to  a  sepa- 
rate organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  should  any  delegate  or 
delegates  who  would  not  be  excluded  from  the  General  Conference  proper,  by  the 
operation  of  the  foregoing  regulation,  be  absent,  then  any  delegate  or  delegates  pre- 
sent, not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  a  member  or  members  of  the  constitutional 
General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seat  or  seats  of  such  absent  delegates  upon 
the  principles  of  selection  before  named. 

"  8.  That  we  have  witnessed  with  sorrow  and  disapprobation,  alike  the  violence- 
manifested  by  some  at  the  South,  and  the  ultraism  displayed  by  others  at  the  North ; 
and  that  we  regret  exceedingly  that  any  annual  conference  should  have  deemed  it 
necessary  to  refuse  to  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  General  Conference 
to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article  :  nevertheless,  we  shall  entertain  for  our  brethren 
of  the  North  the  feeling  of  Christian  kindness  and  brotherly  love. 

"  9.  That  we  heartily  approve  the  entire  course  pursued  by  our  delegates  at  the 
late  General  Conference. 

"  10.  That  we  cordially  invite  such  of  our  bishops  as  may  deem  it  proper,  to  be 
present  at  the  contemplated  convention  in  Louisville. 


108 

"11.  That  it  be  made  the  duty  of  each  preacher  to  take  up  a  public  collection  in 
every  congregation  under  his  charge,  for  the  purpose  of  defraying  the  expenses  of  the 
delegates  to  the  convention  ;  and  that  such  collections  be  taken  up  previous  to  the 
first  Sabbath  in  April  next,  and  immediately  transmitted  to  some  one  of  the  delegates ; 
and  that  the  delegates  be  required  to  report  to  the  next  annual  conference  the  sums 
received  by  them  for  this  purpose,  together  with  the  amount  expended  by  them  in 
attending  said  convention. 

••  12.  That  the  secretary  of  this  conference  be  instructed  to  forward  the  foregoing 
to  the  South- Western  Christian  Advocate  for  publication,  with  a  request  that  all  other 
Church  papers  copy. 

"  Moses  Brock,  Joseph  Travis,  Thomas  Smith,  M.  J.  Blackwell,  J.  T.  Baskerville, 
D.  J.  Allen,  B.  H.  Hubbard,  William  Pearson,  A.  T.  Scruggs." 

The  Mississippi  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  contemplated  division 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  endeavoured  to  examine  the  subject  care- 
fully, and  in  a  spirit  of  reliance  upon  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God  for  direction. 

"  Your  committee  can  but  deplore  the  existence  of  such  causes  as  compel  the 
Church  of  our  choice  to  meditate  a  severance  of  that  union  which  has  so  long  ex- 
isted, and  which,  under  God,  has  contributed  so  efficiently  to  the  spread  of  Scriptu- 
ral holiness  through  these  lands.  But  we  are  fully  convinced  that  justice  to  our- 
selves, as  well  as  compassion  for  the  slaves,  demand  an  unqualified  disapproval  of 
the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference — first,  in  confirming  the  decision  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding ;  and  secondly,  in  virtually 
suspending  Bishop  Andrew  from  the  episcopacy,  not  only  without  law  or  usage,  but 
in  direct  contravention  of  all  law,  and  in  defiance  of  a  resolution  adopted  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  of  1840,  which  provides,  'that  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the 
general  rule  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or 
mere  ownership  of  slave  property,  in  the  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do  not 
admit  of  emancipation  and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes 
no  legal  barrier  to  the  election  or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  of- 
fice known  in  the  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot  therefore 
be  considered  as  operating  any  forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordi- 
nation.' 

"  With  the  abstract  question  of  slavery  we  are  not  now  concerned,  nor  do  we  re- 
gard it  as  a  subject  on  which  the  Church  has  a  right  to  legislate ;  neither  are  we 
disposed  in  this  report  to  state  the  full  extent  of  our  grievances,  or  to  investigate  the 
reasons  which  impose  upon  us  the  necessity  of  planning  an  amicable  separation. 
Your  committee  deeply  regret  the  injury  which  may  be  inflicted  upon  our  beloved 
Zion  by  the  intemperate  and  unjust  denunciation  of  the  whole  North  by  those  who 
have  occasion  to  complain  of  the  illegal  and  oppressive  course  pursued  by  the  ma- 
jority of  the  late  General  Conference,  and  most  earnestly  recommend  the  exercise  of 
that  charity  which  '  suffereth  long  and  is  kind.'  As  the  result  of  our  prayerful  exami- 
nation of  the  subject  in  all  its  bearings,  we  offer  the  following  resolutions  for  your 
consideration  and  adoption  : — 

"  Resolved,  1 .  That  the  decisions  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the  cases  of 
Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew,  were  unauthorized  by  the  Discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  a  tame  submission  to  them  upon  the  part  of 
the  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  would  prevent  our  access  to  the  slaves,  and 
expose  us  to 'suspicions  destructive  to  our  general  usefulness. 

"Resolved,  2.  That  as  no  authorized  plan  of  compromise  has  been  suggested  by  the 
North,  and  as  all  the  propositions  made  by  the  Southern  delegates  were  rejected,  we 
regard  a  separation  as  inevitable,  and  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention,  to  meet 
in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May  next,  agreeably  to  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference  ; 
and  that  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate 
for  every  eleven  members  of  the  annual  conferences — be,  and  the  same  is  hereby 
adopted,  and  that  this  conference  will  elect  delegates  to  the  proposed  convention 
upon  said  basis.  Provided,  however,  that  if.  in  the  providence  of  God,  any  plan  of 
compromise,  which  in  the  judgment  of  our  delegates  will  redress  our  grievances,  and 
effectually  secure  to  us  the  full  exercise  and  peaceable  enjoyment  of  all  our  disci- 


109 

plinary  rights,  should  be  proposed  in  time  to  prevent  disunion,  we  will  joyfully  em- 
brace it. 

"  Resolved,  3.  That  our  delegates  to  said  convention  shall  be  empowered  to  co- 
operate with  the  delegates  to  said  convention  from  the  other  conferences,  in  adopting 
such  measures  as  they  shall  deem  necessary  for  the  complete  organization  of  a 
Southern  Church,  provided  that  it  conform  in  all  its  essential  features  to  the  Disci- 
pline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  Resolved,  4.  That  the  course  pursued  by  our  immediate  representatives  in  the 
late  General  Conference,  was  and  is  approved  by  us. 

"  Resolved,  5.  That  the  conciliatory  spirit  evinced  by  our  general  superintendents 
entitles  them  to  the  unqualified  approbation  of  the  whole  Church,  and  that  we  do 
most  cordially  invite  them  to  attend  the  proposed  convention. 

"  All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  D.  O.  Shattuck.  William  H.  Watkins,  John  G.  Jones,  B.  Pipkin,  L.  Campbell, 
John  N.  Hamill,  A.  T.  M.  Fly,  David  M.  Wiggins,  W.  G.  Gould." 

"  Eighty-one  voting  concurring  in  the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule — none 
non-concurring." 

"  Resolved,  That  the  first  Friday  in  May  next  be  set  apart  as  a  day  of  special  fast- 
ing and  prayer  for  the  superintendence  and  direction  of  Divine  Providence,  with 
regard  to  our  Church  difficulties,  that  the  delegates  may  act  so  as  to  bring  the 
greatest  glory  to  God  and  the  most  good  to  his  Church." 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolutions  of  the  Holston  Confer- 
ence, have  had  the  same  under  consideration,  and  although  we  hold  ourselves  in 
readiness  to  accept  any  plan  of  pacification  which  obliterates  the  distinction  between 
Northern  and  Southern  Methodists,  we  do  not  regard  the  resolution  of  the  Holston 
Conference  as  sanctioned  by  the  North,  or  practicable  in  itself.  Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  this  conference  do  not  concur. 

"D.  0.  Shattuck,  William  Hamilton  Watkins,  John  G.  Jones,  B.  Pipkin,  L. 
Campbell,  J.  N.  Hamill,  A.  T.  M.  Fly,  D.  M.  Wiggins,  Wm.  G.  Gould." 

"  Seventy-three  non-concurring — none  concurring." 

The  following  report  and  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  Arkansas  Conference  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  the  several  subjects  connected  with  the 
prospective  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  had  the  same  under 
calm  and  prayerful  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  present  the  following  as  the  result 
of  their  honest  deliberations. 

"  Being  well  convinced  that  the  members  of  this  body  have  not  been  inattentive 
to  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference,  and  that  they  have  not  failed  to  derive 
some  information  from  the  numerous  addresses  and  communications  that  have  ap- 
peared in  our  periodicals,  your  committee  have  not  been  disposed  to  waste  their  time, 
nor  insult  your  judgments,  by  detailing  the  many  circumstances,  which,  were  you 
differently  situated,  would  require  amplification, — they,  therefore,  present  to  your 
minds  for  consideration  and  action,  the  subjoined  resolutions  : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  decided  opinion  of  this  conference,  that  the  Disci- 
pline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  does  not  sustain  the  action  of  the  late 
General  Conference  in  the  cases  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  suggestions  of  the  bishops,  as  well  as  the 
request  of  several  Southern  delegates,  which  contemplated  the  postponing  of  the 
action  of  the  General  Conference,  until  the  wishes  of  the  whole  Church  could  be 
consulted. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That,  as  we  see  no  probability  that  reparation  will  be  made  for  past 
injuries,  and  no  security  given  that  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  ministry  and 
membership  in  the  slaveholding  conferences  will  be  equally  respected,  we  believe  it 
is  the  imperative  duty,  if  not  the  only  alternative,  of  the  South,  to  form  a  separate 
organization.  Nevertheless,  should  honourable  and  satisfactory  propositions  for  pa- 
cification be  made  by  the  North,  we  shall  expect  our  delegates  to  favour  the  perpe- 
tuation of  the  union. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  holding  of  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the 
conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the 
first  day  of  May,  1845,  agreeably  to  the  recommendation  of  the  delegates  from  the 
Southern  and  South- Western  conferences,  in  the  late  General  Conference. 


110 

"5.  Resolved.  That  t-hould  the  proposed  convention,  representing  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  appointed  to  assemble  at  Louisville,  Ken- 
tucky, the  first  day  of  May,  1845,  proceed  to  a  separate  organization,  as  contingently 
provided  for  in  the  foregoing  resolutions,  then,  in  that  event,  the  convention  shall  be 
regarded  as  the  regular  General  Conference  authorized  and  appointed  by  the  several 
•tiinual  conferences  in  the  Southern  division  of  the  Church,  and  as  possessing  all  the 
rights,  powers,  and  privileges  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  and  subject  to  the  same  restrictions,  limi- 
tations, and  restraints. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  secure  the  constitutional  character  and  action  of 
the  convention  as  a  General  Conference  proper,  should  a  separate  organization  take 
place,  the  ratio  of  representation,  as  now  found  in  the  second  restrictive  rule,  one  for 
every  twenty-one,  shall  prevail  and  determine  the  constitutional  delegates,  taking 
and  accrediting  as  such  the  proper  number  from  each  annual  conference,  first  elected 
in  order ;  and  that  the  supernumerary  delegates  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  con- 
vention to  deliberate,  but  not  members  of  the  General  Conference  proper,  should  the 
convention  proceed  to  a  separate  organization  in  the  South.  Provided,  nevertheless, 
that  should  any  delegate  or  delegates  who  would  not  be  excluded  from  the  General 
Conference  proper,  by  the  operation  of  the  above  regulation,  be  absent,  then  any 
delegate  or  delegates  present,  not  admitted  by  said  regulation  as  a  member  or  mem- 
bers of  the  constitutional  General  Conference,  may  lawfully  take  the  seats  of  such 
absent  delegates,  upon  the  principle  of  selection  named  above. 

"  7.  Resolved,  That,  as  %ve  are  well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  it  is,  we  hereby  instruct  our  delegates  to  said  convention  not  to 
favour  any  change  therein. 

"  8.  Resolved,  That,  though  we  feel  ourselves  aggrieved,  and  have  been  wounded, 
without  cause,  in  the  house  of  our  friends,  we  have  no  disposition  to  impute  wrong 
motives  to  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference,  and  no  inclination  to  endorse 
those  vindictive  proceedings  had  in  some  portions  of  the  South,  believing  it  to  be  the 
duty  of  Christians,  under  all  circumstances,  to  exercise  that  charity  which  beareth  all 
things. 

"  9.  Resolved,  That  the  preachers  take  up  collections  on  their  several  circuits  and 
stations,  at  an  early  period,  and  hand  the  money  collected  to  their  presiding  elders, 
that  the  delegates  may  receive  the  whole  amount  collected  before  they  shall  be  re- 
quired to  start  for  Louisville. 

"  10.  Resolved,  That  we  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  our  representatives  in  the  late 
General  Conference,  for  the  stand  which  they  took,  with  others,  in  defence  of  our 
T)isciplinary  rights. 

"11.  Resolved,  That  the  bishops  generally  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  requested, 
if  it  be  congenial  with  their  feelings,  to  attend  the  convention  at  Louisville. 

"  12.  Resolved,  That  we  recommend  to  our  people  the  observance  of  the  first  of 
May  next  as  a  day  of  humiliation  and  prayer,  that  the  Divine  presence  may  attend 
the  deliberations  of  the  convention. 

"John  Harrell,  Fountain  Brown,  J.  B.  Annis,  Jacob  Custer,  Alexander  Avery, 
J.  F.  Truslow." 

The  Virginia  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolutions  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, recommending  to  all  the  annual  conferences  at  their  first  approaching  ses- 
sions, to  authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that  the  first  clause 
shall  read,  '  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern  nor  of  the 
Chartered  Fund  to  any  purpose,  other  than  the  travelling,  supernumerary,  superan- 
nuated, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  and  to  such  other 
purposes  as  may  be  determined  on  by  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
General  Conference,' — and  to  whom  was  also  referred  the  Address  of  the  Southern 
delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference,  recommending  a  Southern  Convention,  to 
be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845 ;  together  with  the 
proceedings  of  various  primary  and  quarterly  conference  meetings  within  the  bounds 
of  the  Virginia  Conference  on  the  subject  of  a  separation  from  the  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  beg  leave 
to  report : — 

"  That,  having  maturely  considered  these  subjects,  they  do  not  deem  it  necessary 


Ill 

to  present  an  argument  upon  the  various  topics  submitted  to  them ;  but  that  the 
duty  assigned  them  will  probably  be  more  satisfactorily  accomplished  in  the  following 
series  of  resolutions,  namely  : — 

"Resolved,  1.  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article  of  the  Discipline  of  our  Church. 

"  Resolved,  2.  That,  from  the  ample  sources  of  information  before  your  com- 
mittee, in  numerous  primary  meetings,  which  have  been  held  in  various  charges 
within  our  pastoral  limits,  and  the  proceedings  of  quarterly  meeting  conferences, 
which  we  have  the  most  sufficient  reason  to  regard  as  a  fair  and  full  exponent  of  the 
mind  and  will  of  the  membership  upon  the  subject  of  the  action  of  the  recent  General 
Conference,  and  the  propriety  of  division, — we  are  of  opinion,  that  it  is  the  mind  of 
the  laity  of  the  Church,  with  no  exception  sufficient  to  be  regarded  as  the  basis  ol" 
action,  that,  whilst  they  seriously  deprecate  division,  considered  relatively,  and  most 
earnestly  wish  that  some  ground  of  permanent  union  could  have  been  found,  they  see 
no  alternative,  and  therefore  approve  of  a  peaceable  separation  in  the  present  circum- 
stances of  our  condition  ;  and  in  this  opinion  and  this  determination  your  committee 
unanimously  concur. 

"  Resolved,  3.  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  delegates  in 
the  late  General  Conference,  that  there  be  a  Southern  Convention,  to  be  held  in 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845 ;  and  in  the  objects  of  this  con- 
oention,  as  are  contemplated  in  the  address  of  the  Southern- delegates. 

"  Resolved,  4.  That  while  we  do  not  propose  to  dissolve  our  connexion  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  only  with  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  we  are,  therefore,  entitled  to  our  full  proportion  of  all  the  rights 
and  privileges  appertaining  to  the  property  of  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  our  dele- 
gates to  the  convention  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May,  1845,  are  hereby 
instructed  not  to  allow  the  question  of  property  to  enter  into  the  calculation  whether 
or  not  we  shall  exist  as  a  separate  organization. 

"  Resolved,  5.  That  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  was  in  violation  of  the  provisional  rule  of  the  Discipline  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  and  in  derogation  of  the  dignity  and  authority  of  the  episcopal  office  : 
it  was,  therefore,  equally  opposed  to  the  rights  of  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church, 
and  to  those  of  the  incumbents  of  the  episcopal  office.  But  more  than  this  :  it  was 
an  effort  to  accomplish,  by  legislative  action,  what  it  was  only  competent  for  them 
to  do,  if  at  all,  by  regular  judicial  process  :  the  very  attempt  was  an  acknowledgment 
that  there  was  no  rule  of  Discipline,  under  which  he  could  either  be  deposed  or  cen- 
sured, and  that  the  General  Conference,  being  unrestrained  by  the  authority  of  law, 
was  supreme.  Thus,  both  the  episcopal  office  and  its  incumbents  were  taken  from 
under  the  protection  of  the  constitutional  restriction,  and  the  provisional  rule  of  Dis- 
cipline, by  which  it  was  made  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government,  and  placed 
at  the  caprice  of  a  majority,  which  claims  that  its  mere  will  is  the  law  of  the 
Church. 

"  Bishop  Andrew,  therefore,  in  refusing  to  resign  his  office,  or  otherwise  yield  to 
this  unwarranted  assumption  of  authority  on  the  part  of  the  General  Conference, 
has  taken  a  noble  stand  upon  the  platform  of  constitutional  law,  in  defence  of  the 
episcopal  office  and  the  rights  of  the  South,  which  entitles  him  to  the  cordial  appro- 
bation and  support  of  every  friend  of  the  Church  ;  and  we  hereby  tender  him  a 
unanimous  expression  of  our  admiration  of  his  firmness  in  resisting  the  misrule  of  a 
popular  majority. 

"  Resolved,  6.  That  we  cordially  approve  the  course  of  the  Southern  and  South- 
western delegates  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  resisting  with  so  much  con- 
stancy and  firmness  the  encroachments  of  the  majority  upon  the  rights  of  the  South, 
and  for  so  faithfully  warning  them  against  the  tendency  of  those  measures, 
which  we  fear  do  inevitably  draw  after  them  the  dissolution  of  our  ecclesiastical 
union. 

"  John  Early,  Thomas  Crowder,  jr.,  Wm.  A.  Smith,  Abram  Per.n,  George  W. 
Nolley,  Anthony  Dibrell,  H.  B.  Cowles,  D.  S.  Doggett,  Jos.  H.  Davis." 

"  The  recommendation  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article  was  concurred  in — 
eighty-one  in  favour,  and  none  against  it,  and  the  whole  report  of  the  committee  was 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  conference." 


112 

The  North  Carolina  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and  resolutions  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  the  resolution  of  the  late  General  Conference,  respect- 
ing the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  the  report  of  the  select  Committee  of 
Nine,  on  the  declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and  the  reports  of  numerous  vo 
luntary  meetings  both  of  ministers  and  people,  within  the  bounds  of  North  Carolina 
Conference,  were  referred,  beg  leave  to  report  : — 

"  Your  committee  deeply  regret  the  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
which  the  course  of  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference  renders  not  only 
necessary  but  inevitable.  The  unity  of  the  Church,  so  long  the  boast  and  praise  of 
Methodism,  was  a  feature  greatly  admired,  and  more  than  esteemed  by  Southern 
Methodists.  For  its  promotion  and  preservation  they  were  willing  to  surrender  any- 
thing but  principle — vital  principle.  This  they  could  not  do  ! — this  they  durst  not 
do !  The  course  of  the  late  General  Conference  demanded  a  submission  on  the 
part  of  the  ministers  in  the  slaveholding  conferences,  which  the  Discipline  did  not 
require,  and  the  institutions  of  the  South  absolutely  forbade.  To  have  yielded, 
therefore,  would  have  opened  a  breach  in  Methodism  wholly  subversive  of  the 
Church,  and  greatly  mischievous  to  the  civil  community — to  have  yielded  would 
have  been  ruin  !  This,  therefore,  they  refused  to  do ;  absolutely  refused  !  With 
the  Discipline  in  their  hands,  sustained  and  upheld  by  it,  they  protested  against  the 
proceedings  of  the  majority,  with  an  unfaltering  and  manly  voice,  declaring  them  to 
be  not  only  unauthorized,  but  unconstitutional.  The  protestation,  however,  just  and 
legal  as  it  was,  authorized  and  borne  out  by  the  Discipline,  was  altogether  unavailing. 
Nothing  was  left  for  the  South  to  do,  but  to  pass  from  under  the  jurisdiction  of  so 
wayward  a  power,  to  the  regulations  and  government  of  our  old,  wholesome,  and 
Scriptural  Discipline.  This,  we  sorrow  when  we  say  it,  has  opened  a  great  gulf — we 
fear  an  impassable  gulf — between  the  North  and  the  South.  This  consolation,  how- 
ever, if  no  other,  they  have — the  good  Book  of  Discipline,  containing  the  distinctive 
features  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  shall  still  lie  on  the  South  side.  Com- 
pelled by  circumstances  which  could  neither  be  alleviated  nor  controlled — which 
neither  the  entreaties  of  kindness  nor  the  force  of  truth  could  successfully  resist — we 
hesitate  not  to  decide  on  being  forever  separate  from  those  whom  we  not  only  esteem, 
but  love.  Better  far  that  we  should  suffer  the  loss  of  union,  than  that  thousands,  yea 
millions  of  souls  should  perish. 

"  From  the  reports  of  quarterly  meeting  conferences  and  numerous  voluntary 
meetings  within  the  bounds  of  the  North  Carolina  Conference,  both  of  ministers  and 
people,  we  feel  assured  that  it  is  the  mind  of  our  people  and  preachers  fully  to  sustain 
the  action  of  the  Southern  and  South-Western  delegates,  as  set  forth  in  the  Declara- 
tion and  Protest ;  and  therefore, 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  the  time  has  come  for  the  ministers  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  to  refuse  to  act  in  union  with  the  North. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive 
rule  of  the  Discipline. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  to  hold  a  convention  in 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May,  1845. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  this  conference  elect  delegates  to  said  convention  according  to 
the  basis  of  representation  recommended. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew,  was  a  violation  of  the  rule  of  Discipline  on  the  subject  of  slavery, 
and  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  the  episcopal  office,  by  throwing  it  from  under  the 
protection  of  law,  and  exposing  it  to  the  reproach  and  obloquy  of  misrule  and  lawless 
power.  The  bishop,  therefore,  acted  justly  and  honourably  in  resisting  such  action, 
and  declining  obedience  to  the  resolution  of  said  conference  ;  and  for  thus  guarding 
and  respecting  the  rights  of  the  South,  both  of  ministers  and  people,  he  is  entitled  to 
our  highest  regards. 

"  All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

"  H.  G.  Leigh,  S.  S.  Bryant,  James  Jameson,  P.  Doub,  Bennet  T.  Blake,  James 
Reid,  D.  B.  Nicholson,  R.  J.  Carson,  William  Carter." 

"  The  above  report  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  conference.  On  the  question 
of  concurrence  in  altering  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  the  vote  was  :  ayes  68 — 
nays  none.  S.  S.  BRYANT, 

Secretary  of  North  Carolina  Annual  Conference." 


113 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  adopted  by  the  South  Carolina 
Conference  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  general  subject  of  the  difficulties 
growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  on  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew  and  brother  Harding  ;  and,  in  particular,  the  report  of  the  select  committee 
on  the  Declaration  of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, as  adopted  by  the  conference,  and  the  proceedings  of  numerous  quarterly 
conferences,  and  other  meetings,  in  all  parts  of  our  annual  conference  district ;  re- 
spectfully offer  the  following  report  : — 

"  It  appears  to  your  committee,  on  the  evidence  of  numerous  documents,  and  the 
testimony  of  the  preachers,  in  open  conference,  that  in  all  the  circuits  and  stations  of 
this  conference  district,  the  people  have  expressed  their  minds  with  respect  to  the 
action  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the  measures  proper  to  be  adopted  in  conse- 
quence of  that  action.  Resolutions  to  that  effect  have  been  adopted  by  the  quar- 
terly conferences  of  all  the  circuits  and  stations,  without  any  exception ;  and  in 
many,  perhaps  in  most  of  them,  by  other  meetings  also,  which  have  been  called  ex- 
pressly for  the  purpose  ;  and  in  some  of  them,  by  meetings  held  at  every  preaching- 
place  where  there  was  a  society.  And  on  all  these  occasions,  there  has  been  but  one 
voice  uttered — one  opinion  expressed — from  the  sea-board  to  the  mountains,  as  to  the 
unconstitutionality  and  injurious  character  of  the  action  in  the  case  above-named, 
the  necessity  which  that  action  imposes  for  a  separation  of  the  Southern  from  the 
Northern  conferences,  and  the  expediency  and  propriety  of  holding  a  convention  at 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  of  your  sending  delegates  to  it,  agreeably  to  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates  of  the  late  General  Conference. 

"  Your  committee,  also,  have  made  diligent  inquiry,  both  out  of  conference  and 
by  calling  openly  in  conference,  for  information  from  the  preachers,  as  to  the  num- 
ber, if  any,  of  local  preachers,  or  other  official  members,  or  members  of  some  stand- 
ing among  us,  who  should  have  expressed,  in  the  meetings  or  in  private,  a  different 
opinion  from  that  which  the  meetings  have  proclaimed.  And  the  result  of  this  inquiry 
has  been,  that,  in  the  whole  field  of  our  conference  district,  one  individual  only  has 
been  heard  to  express  himself  doubtfully,  as  to  the  expediency  of  a  separate  jurisdic- 
tion for  the  Southern  and  South- Western  conferences  ;  not  even  one  as  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  General  Conference  action.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  this  unanimity  of  the 
people  has  been  brought  about  by  popular  harangues,  or  any  schismatic  efforts  of  any 
of  the  preachers,  or  other  influential  persons ;  but  that  it  has  been  as  spontaneous  as 
universal,  and  from  the  time  that  the  final  action  of  the  General  Conference  became 
known,  at  every  place.  Your  committee  state  this  fact  thus  formally,  that  it  may 
correct  certain  libellous  imputations  which  have  been  cast  on  some  of  our  senior  min- 
isters, in  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal ;  as  well  as  for  the  evidence  which  it 
furnishes  of  the  necessity  of  the  measures  which  are  in  progress  for  the  relief  of  the 
Church  in  the  South  and  South- West. 

"  Your  committee  also  consider  it  due  to  state,  that  it  does  not  appear  that  the 
action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  cases  of  the  bishop  and  of  brother  Harding, 
proceeded  of  ill-will,  as  of  purpose  to  oppress  us ;  nor  of  any  intended  disregard  of 
the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  or  of  the  Discipline,  as  if  to  effect  the  designs  of  a 
politico-religious  faction,  without  warrant  of  the  Scriptures,  and  against  the  Disci- 
pline and  peace  of  the  Church :  but  they  consider  that  action  as  having  been  produced 
out  of  causes  which  had  their  origin  in  the  fanatical  abolitionism  of  Garrison  aad 
others  ;  and  which,  being  suffered  to  enter  and  agitate  the  Church,  first  in  New-Eng- 
land, and  afterwards  generally  at  the  North,  worked  up  such  a  revival  of  the  anti- 
slavery  spirit  as  had  grown  too  strong  for  the  restraints  of  either  Scripture  or  Disci- 
pline, and  too  general  through  the  Eastern,  Northern,  and  North- Western  conferences 
to  be  resisted  any  longer  by  the  easy,  good-natured  prudence  of  the  brethren  repre- 
senting those  conferences  in  the  late  General  Conference.  Pressed  beyond  their 
strength,  whether  little  or  much,  they  had  to  give  way ;  and  reduced  (by  the  force  of 
principles  which,  whether  by  their  own  fault  or  not,  had  obtained  a  controlling  power) 
to  the  alternative  of  breaking  up  the  Churches  of  their  own  conference  districts,  or 
adopting  measures  which  they  might  hardly  persuade  themselves  could  be  endured 
by  the  South  and  South- West,  they  determined  on  the  latter.  The  best  of  men  may 
have  their  judgments  perverted ;  and  it  is  not  wonderful  that,  under  such  stress  of 
circumstances,  the  majority  should  have  adoped  a  new  construction  of  both  Scripture 


114. 

and  Discipline,  and  persuaded  themselves,  that  in  pacifying  the  abolitionists,  they 
were  not  unjust  to  their  Southern  brethren.  Such,  however,  is  unquestionably  the 
character  of  the  measures  they  adopted  ;  and  which  the  Southern  Churches  cannot 
possibly  submit  to.  unless  the  majority  who  enacted  them  coxild  also  have  brought  us 
to  a  conviction  that  we  ought  to  be  bound  by  their  judgment,  against  our  consciences 
and  calling  of  God,  and  the  warrant  of  Scripture,  and  the  provisions  of  the  Discipline. 
But  while  we  believe  that  our  paramount  duty  in  our  calling  of  God,  positively  for- 
bids our  yielding  the  Gospel  in  the  Southern  States,  to  the  pacification  of  abolitionism 
in  the  Northern ;  and  the  conviction  is  strong  and  clear  in  our  own  minds,  that  we 
have  both  the  warrant  of  Scripture  and  the  plain  provisions  of  the  Discipline  to  sus- 
tain us ;  we  see  no  room  to  entertain  any  proposition  for  compromise,  under  the  late 
action  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  brother  Harding,  and  the  principles  avowed 
for  the  maintenance  of  that  action,  short  of  what  has  been  shadowed  forth  in  the  re- 
port of  the  select  committee  which  we  have  had  under  consideration,  and  the  mea- 
sures recommended  by  the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates  at  their  meeting 
after  the  General  Conference  had  closed  its  session. 

"  Your  committee  do,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  reso- 
lutions : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  it  is  necessary  for  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States  and  Territories,  and  in  Texas,  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion, 
agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  report  of  the  select  committee  of  nine  of  the  late 
General  Conference,  adopted  on  the  8th  day  of  June  last. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  we  consider  and  esteem  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the 
aforesaid  committee  of  nine,  by  the  General  Conference,  (and  the  more  for  the  una- 
nimity with  which  it  was  adopted,)  as  involving  the  most  solemn  pledge  which  could 
have  been  given  by  the  majority  to  the  minority  and  the  Churches  represented  by 
them,  for  the  full  and  faithful  execution  of  all  the  particulars  specified  and  intended 
in  that  report. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  recommendation  of  the  Southern  dele- 
gates, to  hold  a  convention  in  Louisville,  on  the  1st  day  of  May  next,  and  will  elect 
delegates  to  the  same  on  the  ratio  recommended  in  the  address  of  the  delegates  to 
their  constituents. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  we  earnestly  request  the  bishops,  one  and  all,  to  attend  the 
said  convention. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  while  we  do  not  consider  the  proposed  convention  compe- 
tent to  make  any  change  or  changes  in 'the  Rules  of  Discipline,  they  may  neverthe- 
less indicate  what  changes,  if  any,  are  deemed  necessary  under  a  separate  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Southern  and  South-Western  conferences.  And  that  it  is  necessary  for 
the  convention  to  resolve  on,  and  provide  for,  a  separate  organization  of  these  con- 
ferences under  a  General  Conference  to  be  constituted  and  empowered  in  all  respects 
for  the  government  of  these  conferences,  as  the  General  Conference  hitherto  has  been 
with  respect  to  all  the  annual  conferences — according  to  the  provisions  and  intentions 
of  the  late  General  Conference. 

"  6.  Resolved,  That  as,  in  common  with  all  our  brethren  of  this  conference  dis- 
trict, we  have  deeply  sympathized  with  Bishop  Andrew  in  his  afflictions,  and  believe 
him  to  have  been  blameless  in  the  matter  for  which  he  has  suffered,  so,  with  them, 
we  affectionately  assure  him  of  our  approbation  of  his  course,  and  receive  him  as  not 
•the  less  worthy,  or  less  to  be  honoured  in  his  episcopal  character,  for  the  action 
which  has  been  had  in  his  case. 

"  7.  Resolved,  That  we  recognise  in  the  wisdom  and  prudence,  the  firmness  and 
discretion,  exhibited  in  the  course  of  Bishop  Soule,  during  the  General  Conference — 
as  well  as  in  former  instances,  wherein  he  has  proved  his  devotion  to  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  constitutional  right  in  our  Church — nothing  more  than  was  to  be  expected 
from  the  bosom  friend  of  Asbury  and  M'Kendree. 

"  8.  Resolved,  That,  in  common  with  the  whole  body  of  our  people,  we  approve 
of  the  conduct  of  our  delegates,  both  during  the  General  Conference,  and  sub- 
sequently. 

"  9.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference for  the  change  of  the  sixth  article  of  the  restrictive  rules  in  the  book  of  Dis- 
cipline, so  as  to  allow  an  equitable  pro  rata  division  of  the  Book  Concern. 

"  W.  Capers,  W.  Smith,  H.  Bass,  N.  Talley,  H.  A.  C.  Walker,  C.  Belts,  S.  W. 
Capers,  S.  Dunwody,  R.  J.  Boyd,  Committee." 

8* 


115 

The  Indian  Mission  Conference  adopted  the  following  resolutions : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference 
relating  to  an  amicable  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States,  beg  leave  to  report  the  following  resolutions  for  adoption  by  the  confer- 
ence : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  proposed  alteration  in  the  sixth  restrictive 
article  of  the  Discipline. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  minority  of  the  late 
General  Conference. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  we  elect  delegates  to  represent  the  Indian  Mission  Conference 
in  the  contemplated  convention  to  be  held  in  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May  next. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  this  conference  do  deeply  deplore  the  necessity  for  division 
of  any  kind  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  that  we  will  not  cease  to  send 
up  our  prayers  to  Almighty  God  for  his  gracious  interposition,  and  that  he  may 
guide  the  affairs  of  the  Church  to  a  happy  issue. 

"  J.  C.  BERRYMAX,  Chairman." 

"The  above  report  having  been  read,  was  taken  up  section  by  section,  and  dis- 
posed of  as  follows : — The  first  resolution  was  adopted,  ayes  14 ;  nays  1.  The  second 
resolution  was  adopted,  ayes  1 1  ;  nays  3  ;  declined  voting,  4.  The  third  resolution 
was  adopted,  ayes  16.  The  fourth  resolution  was  adopted,  ayes  17.  The  preamble 
and  resolutions  were  then  adopted  by  the  conference  as  a  whole. 

"  The  conference  then  proceeded,  in  accordance  with  the  third  resolution,  to  elect 
delegates  to  attend  the  proposed  convention  in  Louisville,  in  May  next.  On  count- 
ing the  votes,  it  appeared  that  the  whole  number  of  votes  given  was  twenty-one,  of 
which  number  William  H.  Goode  had  received  twenty,  Edward  T.  Peery  eighteen, 
scattering  four.  Whereupon,  W.  H.  Goode  and  E.  T.  Peery,  having  received  a 
majority  of  all  the  votes  given,  were  declared  duly  elected.  D.  B.  Gumming  was 
then  elected  reserved  delegate. 

"  The  following  resolutions  were  on  the  next  day  unanimously  adopted,  at  the  re- 
quest of  the  delegates  elect : — 

"  '  Resolved,  That  in  view  of  the  condition  of  the  Church,  at  the  present  trying 
crisis,  the  members  of  this  conference  will,  when  practicable,  as  near  as  may  be,  at 
the  hour  of  twilight,  in  the  evening  of  each  day,  until  the  close  of  the  approaching 
convention  at  Louisville,  meet  each  other  at  a  throne  of  grace,  and  devoutly  implore 
the  blessing  of  God  upon  our  assembled  delegates  in  the  discharge  of  their  important 
duties. 

"  'Resolved,  That  the  Friday  preceding  the  opening  of  said  convention,  be  set 
apart  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  supplication  to  Almighty  God  for  the  continued  unity, 
peace,  and  prosperity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  that  our  members 
throughout  this  conference  be  requested  to  join  us  in  the  devotions  of  that  day. 

"  'WM.  H.  GOODE, 
E.  T.  PEERY.'  " 

The  following  preamble  and  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Georgia 
Conference :  — 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  difficulties  of  the  Church, 
as  growing  out  of  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  case  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, and  to  submit  some  recommendations  to  the  annual  conference  for  their  adop- 
tion, beg  leave  to  report : — 

"  The  action  of  the  majority  in  the  last  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harding,  has  rendered 
it  indispensable  that  the  conferences,  within  whose  limits  slavery  exists,  should  cease 
to  be  under  the  jurisdiction  of  that  body.  They  must  either  abandon  the  people  col- 
lected under  their  ministry,  and  committed  to  their  pastoral  care,  and  the  vast  and 
widening  field  of  missionary  labour  among  the  slaves — a  field  to  which  their  attention 
is  imperatively  called  by  their  sympathies  as  Christians,  their  sense  of  ministerial 
obligation  as  preachers  of  the  Gospel,  and  their  interests  and  duties  as  citizens — or 
they  must  live  under  the  control  of  an  ecclesiastical  body,  separate  and  distinct  from, 
and  independent  of,  the  conferences  lying  within  the  States  and  Territories  where 
slavery  is  not  allowed  by  law.  In  view  of  the  relations  before  stated,  that  distinct 


116 

organization  is  required  by  a  necessity  strict  and  absolute,  and  upon  that  issue  we 
place  it,  before  the  Church  and  the  world.  The  exigence  which  brings  it  upon  us, 
arose,  not  out  of  our  acts  or  designs ;  no  collateral  considerations  of  expedience 
abated  our  zeal  in  withstanding  it  ;  no  collateral  issues  upon  points  involved,  affected 
our  determination  to  maintain  the  unity  of  the  Church  under  one  organization  as 
heretofore  existing ;  no  pride  of  opinion,  speculative  differences,  nor  personal  mo- 
tives, have  conducted  us  to  this  conclusion.  We  did  not  seek  to  effect  any  changes 
in  the  doctrine  or  Discipline  of  our  Church  ;  we  did.  not  ask  any  boon  at  the  hands 
of  the  General  Conference,  nor  any  exemption  from  the  operation  of  the  laws  which 
were  common  to  the  whole  Connexion ;  and  whatever  consequences,  affecting  the 
Church  or  the  civil  community,  may  result  from  our  movement,  we  confidently  look 
for  acquittal  to  the  judgment  of  posterity,  and  the  decision  of  the  sober  and  unpreju- 
diced among  our  contemporaries. 

"  The  General  Conference  violated  the  law  of  the  Church :  first,  by  confirming 
the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  suspending  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harding  from  his 
connexion  with  that  conference  as  a  travelling  preacher  therein,  because  he  would 
not  give  freedom  to  slaves,  which  by  the  laws  of  the  land  he  could  not  manumit ; 
and  secondly,  by  passing  a  resolution  intended  to  inhibit  Bishop  Andrew  from  the 
exercise  of  his  episcopal  functions  for  the  same  reasons ;  in  both  cases  contrary  to 
the  express  provisions  of  the  Discipline,  which  allows  preachers  to  hold  slaves 
wherever  they  are  not  pennitted  by  the  laws  of  the  land  to  enjoy  freedom  when 
manumitted ;  and  in  both  cases  striking  an  effective  blow  at  the  fundamental  principle 
of  the  economy  of  Methodism,  as  it  destroys  that  general  itinerancy  of  the  preachers, 
which  is  its  most  distinguished  peculiarity  ;  for  under  their  decision,  preachers  hold- 
ing slaves  in  conferences  where  by  the  law  of  the  Discipline  they  are  allowed  so  to 
do,  may  not  be  transferred  to  conferences  within  whose  limits  slavery  does  not  exist. 

"  By  the  same  decision,  both  preachers  and  lay-members  holding  slaves  are  thrown 
into  an  odious  and  dishonoured  caste,  the  first  deprived  of  office  therefor,  and  the 
religious  character  of  both  impeached,  and  thrown  under  suspicion  thereby  ;  to  which 
must  be  added,  as  an  evil  not  lightly  to  be  regarded,  nor  slightly  overlooked,  that 
in  connexion  with  the  fanatical  movements  of  abolitionists  in  the  North,  East,  and 
West,  it  is  well  fitted  to  excite  slaves  to  disaffection  and  rebellion,  making  it  impera- 
tive upon  governments  and  citizens  to  prohibit  all  communication  between  slaves  and 
preachers,  who  either  teach  such  doctrine,  or  impliedly  admit  it  to  be  true  by  sub- 
mitting to  such  dishonour  and  deprivation.  Secondly.  That  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  the  General  Conference  have  violated  the  Discipline  of  the  Church  and  in- 
vaded personal  rights,  which  are  secured  by  the  laws  of  every  enlightened  nation,  if 
not  by  the  usages  of  every  savage  people  on  earth.  They  tried  and  sentenced  Bishop 
Andrew  without  charges  preferred,  or  a  cognizable  offence  stated.  If  it  is  even  ad- 
mitted that  they  intended  to  charge  him  with  '  improper  conduct,'  as  a  phrase  used 
in  the  Discipline  to  embrace  every  class  of  offences  for  which  a  bishop  is  amenable 
to  the  General  Conference,  and  on  conviction  liable  to  be  expelled,  they  did  not  for- 
mally prefer  that  charge  ;  if  they  intended  to  specify  his  '  connexion  with  slavery,'  as 
the  substantive  offence  under  that  charge,  a  '  connexion  with  slavery'  is  not  a  cogni- 
zable offence  under  any  law  of  our  Church,  written  or  unwritten,  statutory  or  prescrip- 
tive, and  the  only  '  connexion  with  slavery'  attempted  to  be  established  in  his  case, 
is  expressly  permitted  by  the  Discipline  in  section  10th,  part  3d,  on  slavery.  If  they 
claimed  the  right  to  declare  in  their  legislative  capacity,  that  '  such  a  connexion  with 
slavery'  was  an  offence  in  a  bishop,  they  could  only  extend  it  to  him  retrospectively 
by  ex  post  facto  enactment,  and  even  then  it  was  not  promulgated  until  the  very  mo- 
ment in  which  they  pronounced  his  sentence  by  a  majority  vote.  But  we  cannot 
admit  that  the  framers  of  our  Discipline  ever  intended  to  subject  a  bishop  to  the 
monstrous  injustice  of  being  liable  to  be  expelled  by  the  General  Conference,  exercis- 
ing original  jurisdiction,  for  an  impropriety  short  of  immorality  or  official  delinquency, 
whilst  they  so  cautiously  secured  his  official  and  personal  rights  in  all  cases  where 
that  body  has  appellate  cognizance  of  charges  for  positive  immoralities  ;  and  we  are 
confident  that  a  fair  and  rational  construction  of  the  4th  and  5th  questions,  and  their 
answers  in  the  4th  section  of  the  1  st  chapter  of  the  Discipline,  will  make  '  improper 
conduct,'  in  the  answer  to  the  4th  question,  and  '  immorality,'  in  the  5th,  descriptive 
of  the  same  class  of  offences  in  the  mind  of  the  lawmaker,  who  could  never  have 
intended  to  subject  that  venerable  officer  to  expulsion  for  offences  so  light,  that  they 
could  not  be  considered  immoralities  or  official  delinquencies,  and  so  entirely  depend- 


117 

ent  for  their  very  existence  upon  the  caprice  or  varying  notions  of  every  General 
Conference,  that  they  could  not  either  be  classified  or  designated. 

"  The  foregoing  views  we  consider  the  embodiment  of  public  opinion  throughout 
our  conference.  The  sentiments  of  our  people  in  primary  meetings,  in  quarterly 
conferences,  as  expressed  in  the  most  solemn  forms,  sustain  the  course  of  our  delega- 
tion in  the  General  Conference,  and  approve  and  even  demand  an  organization  which 
shall  transfer  the  slaveholding  conferences  from  the  jurisdiction  of  me  North.  The 
unanimity  of  the  people  we  verily  believe  to  be  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of 
Church  action,  and  therefore  feel  ourselves  perfectly  justified  in  recommending  to 
your  body  the  adoption  of  the  following  resolutions,  viz  : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  we  will  elect  delegates  to  the  convention  to  be  held  in  Louis- 
ville, in  Kentucky,  on  the  1  st  of  May  next,  upon  the  basis  of  representation  proposed 
and  acted  on  by  the  other  conferences  ;  viz.,  one  delegate  for  every  eleven  members 
of  our  conference. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  co-operate  with  the  delegates 
from  the  other  Southern  and  South-Western  conferences,  who  shall  be  represented  in 
the  convention,  in  effecting  the  organization  of  a  General  Conference,  which  shall 
embrace  those  annual  conferences,  and  in  making  all  necessary  arrangements  for  its 
going  into  operation,  as  soon  as  the  acts  of  the  said  convention  shall  have  been 
reported  by  the  several  delegations  to  their  constituents,  and  accepted  by  them,  ac- 
cording to  such  arrangements  as  may  be  made  by  the  convention  for  carrying  the 
same  into  effect. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be  instructed  to  use  all  prudent  precautions  to 
secure  that  portion  of  the  Book  Concern  and  Chartered  Fund  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  to  which  the  annual  conferences  represented  in  the  convention,  shall 
be  unitedly  entitled,  and  all  the  property  to  which  the  several  annual  conferences  are 
entitled  to  them  severally  ;  and  that  to  this  end,  they  be  requested  to  obtain  the 
written  opinions  of  one  or  more  eminent  lawyers  ;  but  that  in  the  event  they  must 
either  abandon  the  property,  or  remain  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  constituted  as  it  now  is,  they  be  left  to  the 
exercise  of  a  sound  discretion  in  the  premises. 

"  4.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  make  a  report  to  this  body  at  its  next  session, 
of  all  their  acts  and  doings  in  the  aforesaid  convention,  and  this  body  shall  not  be 
bound  by  any  arrangements  therein  made,  until  after  it  shall  have  accepted  and  ap- 
proved them  in  conference  assembled. 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  our  delegates  be,  and  they  are  hereby  instructed  not  to  agree 
to  any  alterations  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  that  the 
Discipline  adopted  under  the  new  organization,  shall  be  that  known  and  recognised 
as  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  with  such 
modifications  only  as  are  necessary  formally  to  adapt  it  to  the  new  organization. 

li  6.  Resolved,  That  we  consider  ourselves  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  and  that  we  have  done  no  act,  nor  do  we 
authorize  any  act  to  be  done  in  our  name,  by  which  our  title  to  be  so  considered  shall 
be  forfeited,  unless  in  the  event  contemplated  in  the  last  clause  of  the  third  resolution 
it  becomes  necessary  so  to  do. 

"  7.  Resolved,  That  we  highly  appreciate  the  devotion  of  our  venerable  senior 
bishop  to  the  constitution  and  Discipline  of  the  Church,  and  his  uncompromising 
firmness  in  maintaining  both  the  one  and  the  other,  and  hereby  assure  him  of  our  in- 
creased confidence  and  affection. 

"8.  Resolved,  That  our  beloved  Bishop  Andrew  has  endeared  himself  to  the 
preachers  and  people  of  the  Southern  Church,  by  resisting  the  constitutional  dictation 
of  the  majority  of  the  late  General  Conference,  and  that  we  cordially  approve  his 
whole  action  in  the  case,  and  welcome  him  to  the  unrestricted  exercise  of  his  episco- 
pal functions  among  us. 

"  9.  Resolved,  That  the  course  of  our  delegates  in  the  trying  circumstances  by 
which  they  were  surrounded  during  the  last  session  of  the  General  Conference,  meets 
our  entire  approbation. 

"  10.  Resolved,  That  we  concur  in  the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  as 
recommended  by  the  resolution  of  the  General  Conference. 

"11.  Resolved,  That  we  do  not  concur  with  the  Holston  Conference  in  the  reso- 
lution proposed  by  them,  regarding  it  as  tending  only  to  embarrass  the  action  of  the 
convention,  without  the  slighest  promise  of  good  to  either  division  of  the  Church. 


118 

"  L.  Pierce,  Thomas  Samford,  Ignatius  A.  Few,  Samuel  Anthony,  Isaac  Boring, 
George  F.  Pierce,  Joan  W.  Talley,  W.  D.  Matthews,  J.  B.  Payne,  Josiah  Lewis." 

"  It  was  further  resolved,  that  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  be 
requested  to  attend  the  convention  of  Southern  delegates  to  be  held  at  Louisville  in 
May  next." 

The  following  report  was  unanimously  adopted  by  the  Florida  Conference  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  subject  of  the  action  of  the  late  Gene- 
ral Conference  in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  F.  A.  Harding  ;  also  the  report 
of  the  committee  of  nine  in  the  late  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of  a  peace- 
able separation  of  the  Church  ;  also  the  resolution  of  the  Holston  Conference  on  the 
same  subject,  submit  the  following  resolutions,  to  wit  : — 

"  1.  Resolved,  That  we  disapprove  of  the  course  of  the  late  General  Conference 
in  the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  F.  A.  Harding. 

"  2.  That  we  heartily  approve  the  proposed  Plan  of  Separation  as  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference,  under  which  the  Southern  and  South-Western  conferences  are 
authorized  to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion. 

"  3.  That  we  .are  satisfied  that  the  peace  and  success  of  the  Church  in  the  South 
demand  a  separate  and  distinct  organization. 

"  4.  That  we  commend  and  admire  the  firm  and  manly  course  pursued  by  Bishop 
Andrew  under  the  trials  he  has  had  to  encounter,  and  that  we  still  regard  him  as 
possessing  all  his  episcopal  functions. 

"  5.  That  the  course  pursued  by  our  venerable  senior  superintendent,  Bishop 
Soule,  in  defending  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  has  served  but  to  endear  him  to  us 
more  and  more,  and  we  heartily  approve  his  course  in  inviting  Bishop  Andrew  to 
assist  him  in  his  episcopal  visitations. 

"  6.  That  we  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  all  those  brethren  who  voted  in  the 
minority  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case. 

"  7.  That  we  approve  of  the  proposed  convention  to  be  held  in  Louisville  the  first 
of  May  next,  and  will  proceed  to  elect  delegates  to  said  convention. 

"  8.  That  we  do  not  concur  in  the  resolution  of  the  Holston  Conference,  proposing 
the  election  of  delegates  for  forming  a  plan  of  compromise. 

"  9.  That  we  do  concur  in  the  recommendation  of  the  late  General  Conference  for 
the  change  of  the  sixth  article  in  the  restrictive  rules  in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  al- 
lowing an  equitable  pro  rota  division  of  the  Book  Concern. 

"  P.  P.  Smith,  T.  C.  Benning,  R.  H.  Lucky,  J.  W.  Yarbrough,  R.  H.  Howren, 
"\V.  W.  Griffin,  A.  Peeler,  A.  Martin,  S.  P.  Richardson." 

The  Texas  Conference  adopted  the  following  report  and  resolutions  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  were  referred  certain  acts  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, causing  and  providing  for  a  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or 
the  General  Conference  thereof,  and  sundry  communications  pertaining  thereto,  have 
had  the  same  under  solemn  and  prayerful  consideration,  and  beg  leave  to  present 
the  following  report : — 

"  In  view  of  the  numerous  expositions  and  arguments,  pro  and  con,  with  which 
the  Christian  Advocates  have  teemed  for  some  months,  on  the  merits  of  the  highly- 
important  subject  upon  which  your  committee  have  been  called  to  act,  they  presume 
that  the  conference  is  too  well  enlightened  to  need  an  elaborate  and  argumentative 
investigation  of  them,  in  their  multifarious  relations  and  bearings  ;  they,  therefore, 
respectfully  present  the  following  resolutions,  as  the  result  of  their  deliberations  : — 

"Resolved,  1.  That  we  approve  of  the  course  of  the  Southern  and  South-Western 
delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference  ;  and  that  their  independent  and  faithful 
discharge  of  duty,  in  a  trying  crisis,  commands  our  admiration  and  merits  our  thanks. 

"  2.  That  we  deeply  deplore  the  increasingly-fearful  controversy  between  the 
Northern  and  Southern  divisions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  the  institu- 
tion of  domestic  slavery,  and  that  we  will  not  cease  to  pray  most  fervently  to  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  for  his  gracious  interposition  in  guiding  this  controversy 
to  a  happy  issue. 

"  3.  That  we  approve  the  appointment  of  a  convention  of  delegates  from  the  con- 
ferences in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  the  city  of  Louisville,  on  the  first  of  May  next, 


119 

by  the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates  in  the  late  General  Conference  ;  and 
also,  the  ratio  of  representation  proposed  by  said  delegates — to  wit,  one  delegate  for 
every  eleven  members  of  the  Conference  ;  and  that  we  will  elect  delegates  to  the 
proposed  convention  upon  said  basis,  to  act  under  the  following  instructions,  to  wit : 
To  endeavour  to  secure  a  compromise  between  the  North  and  South  ;  to  oppose  a 
formal  division  of  the  Church  before  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  or  a  general 
convention  can  be  convened  to  decide  the  present  controversy.  But  should  a  divi- 
sion be  deemed  unavoidable,  and  be  determined  on  by  the  convention,  then,  being 
well  satisfied  with  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  as  it  is,  we  instruct  our  delegates 
not  to  support  or  favour  any  change  in  said  Discipline,  by  said  convention,  other  than 
to  adapt  its  fiscal  economy  to  the  Southern  organization. 

"  4.  That  we  approve  of  the  dignified  and  prudent  course  of  the  bench  of  bishops, 
who  presided  in  the  late  General  Conference. 

"  5.  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  conference,  that  the  Rev.  John  Clarke,  one  of  our 
delegates  to  the  late  General  Conference,  entirely  misrepresented  our  views  and 
sentiments,  in  his  votes  in  the  cases  of  Rev.  F.  A.  Harding  and  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  6.  That  we  appoint  the  Friday  immediately  preceding  the  meeting  of  the  pro- 
posed general  convention  of  the  delegates  of  the  Southern  and  South- Western  con- 
ferences, as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  blessing  of  Almighty  God  on  said 
convention,  that  it  may  be  favoured  with  the  healthful  influence  of  his  grace,  and 
the  guidance  of  his  wisdom. 

"  Chauncey  Richardson,  Robert  Alexander,  Samuel  A.  Williams  :" 

The  Alabama  Conference  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  . — 

"The  committee  appointed  by  the  conference  to  take  into  consideration  the  sub- 
ject of  a  separate  jurisdiction  for  the  Southern  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  beg  leave  to  report :  That  they  have  meditated  with  prayerful  solici- 
tude on  this  important  matter,  and  have  solemnly  concluded  on  the  necessity  of  the 
measure.  They  suppose  it  to  be  superfluous  to  review  formally  all  the  proceedings 
which  constitute  the  unhappy  controversy  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  por- 
tions of  our  Church,  inasmuch  as  their  sentiments  can  be  expressed  in  one  sentence, 
— They  endorse  the  unanswerable  Protest  of  the  minority  in  the  late  General  Con- 
ference. They  believe  that  the  doctrines  of  that  imperishable  document  cannot  be 
successfully  assailed.  They  are  firm  in  the  conviction  that  the  action  of  the  ma- 
jority in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  was  unconstitutional.  Being  but  a  delegated 
body,  the  General  Conference  has  no  legitimate  right  to  tamper  with  the'  office  of  a 
general  superintendent — his  amenableness  to  that  body  and  liability  to  expulsion  by 
it,  having  exclusive  reference  to  mal-administration,  ceasing  to  travel,  and  immoral 
conduct.  They  are  of  opinion  that  Bishop  Andrew's  connexion  with  slavery  can  come 
under  none  of  these  heads.  If  the  entire  eldership  of  the  Church,  in  a  conven- 
tional capacity,  were  to  constitute  non-si aveholding  or  even  abolitionism  a  tenure  by 
which  the  episcopal  office  should  be  held,  or  if  they  were  to  abolish  the  office,  they 
doubtless  could  plead  the  abstract  right  thus  to  modify  or  revolutionize  the  Church 
in  its  supreme  executive  administration  ;  but  before  the  General  Conference  can 
justly  plead  this  right,  it  must  show  when  and  where  such  plenary  power  was  dele- 
gated to  it  by  the  only  fountain  of  authority — the  entire  pastorate  of  the  Church. 
Your  committee  are,  therefore,  of  opinion,  that  the  General  Conference  has  no  more 
power  over  a  bishop,  except  in  the  specified  cases  of  mal-administration,  ceasing  to 
travel,  and  immorality,  than  over  the  episcopacy,  as  an  integral  part  of  our  ecclesi- 
astical polity.  It  can  no  more  depose  a  bishop  for  slaveholding  than  it  can  create  a 
new  Church. 

"  Your  committee  deeply  regret  that  these  '  conservative '  sentiments  did  not 
occur  to  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference,  and  that  the  apologists  of 
that  body,  since  its  session,  have  given  them  no  place  in  their  ecclesiastical  creed, 
but  on  the  contrary  have  given  fearful  evidence  that  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of 
Bishop  Andrew  are  but  the  incipiency  of  a  course,  which,  when  finished,  will  leave 
not  a  solitary  slaveholder  in  the  communion  which  shall  be  unfortunately  under  their 
control.  The  foregoing  sentiments  and  opinions  embody  the  general  views  ex- 
pressed most  unequivocally  throughout  the  conference  district  since  the  late  General 
Conference,  by  the  large  body  of  the  membership,  both  in  primary  meetings  and 
quarterly  conferences. 


120 

"  The  committee,  therefore,  offer  to  the  calm  consideration  and  mature  action  of 
the  Alabama  Annual  Conference,  the  following  series  of  resolutions  : — 

"  1.  Rcsolttd,  That  this  conference  deeply  deplores  the  action  of  the  late  General 
Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  case  of  our  venerable  super- 
intendent, Bishop  Andrew,  believing  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  being  as  totally  desti- 
tute of  warrant  from  the  Discipline  as  from  the  word  of  God. 

"  2.  That  the  almost-unanimous  agreement  of  Northern  Methodists  with  the 
majority,  and  Southern  Methodists  with  the  minority  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, shows  the  wisdom  of  that  body  in  suggesting  a  duality  of  jurisdiction  to 
meet  the  present  emergency. 

"  3.  That  this  conference  agrees  to  the  proposition  for  the  alteration  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  rule  of  the  Discipline. 

"  4.  That  this  conference  approves  of  the  projected  convention  at  Louisville,  in 
May  next. 

"  5.  That  this  conference  most  respectfully  invites  all  the  bishops  to  attend  the 
proposed  convention  at  Louisville. 

"  6.  That  this  conference  is  decided  in  its  attachment  to  Methodism,  as  it  exists 
in  the  Book  of  Discipline,  and  hopes  that  the  Louisville  convention  will  not  make 
the  slightest  alteration,  except  so  far  as  may  be  absolutely  necessary  for  the  forma- 
tion of  a  separate  jurisdiction. 

"  7.  That  every  preacher  of  this  conference  shall  take  up  a  collection  in  his 
station  or  circuit,  as  soon  as  practicable,  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  delegates  to 
the  convention  ;  and  the  proceeds  of  such  collection  shall  be  immediately  paid  over 
to  the  nearest  delegate  or  presiding  elder,  and  the  excess  or  deficit  of  the  collection 
for  the  said  expenses  shall  be  reported  to  the  next  conference,  which  shall  take  action 
on  the  same. 

"  8.  That  the  Friday  immediately  preceding  the  session  of  the  convention,  shall 
be  observed  in  all  our  circuits  and  stations,  as  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  for  the 
blessings  of  God  upon  its  deliberations. 

"9.  That  whilst  this  conference  fully  appreciates  the  commendable  motives  which 
induced  the  Holston  Conference  to  suggest  another  expedient  to  compromise  the 
differences  existing  between  the  Northern  and  Southern  divisions  of  the  Church,  it 
nevertheless  cannot  concur  in  the  proposition  of  that  conference  concerning  that 
matter. 

"  10.  That  this  conference  fully  recognises  the  right  of  our  excellent  superinten- 
dent, Bishop  Soule,  to  invite  Bishop  Andrew  to  share  with  him  the  responsibilities 
of  the  episcopal  office  ;  and  while  the  conference  regrets  the  absence  of  the  former, 
it  rejoices  in  being  favoured  with  the  efficient  services  of  the  latter — it  respectfully 
tenders  these  '  true  yoke-fellows '  in  the  superintendency  the  fullest  approbation,  the 
most  fervent  prayers,  and  the  most  cordial  sympathies. 

"  Thos.  O.  Summers,  A.  H.  Mitchell,  E.  V.  Levert,  J.  Hamilton,  E.  Heam,  W. 
Murrah,  J.  Boring,  Geo.  Shaeffer,  C.  McLeod." 

Bishop  Soule's  letter  of  adhesion,  and  Bishop  Andrew's  letter,  both  of  which  were 
addressed  to  the  convention  at  Louisville,  are  as  follows  : — 

"DEAR  BRETHREN, — I  feel  myself  bound  in  good  faith,  to  carry  out  the  official 
plan  of  episcopal  visitations  as  settled  by  the  bishops  in  New- York,  and  published  in 
the  official  papers  of  the  Church,  until  the  session  of  the  first  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ;  from  which  time  it  would  be  necessary 
that  the  plan  should  be  so  changed  as  to  be  accommodated  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
two  distinct  General  Conferences.  That  when  such  Southern  General  Conference 
shall  be  held,  I  shall  feel  myself  fully  authorized  by  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  to  unite  myself  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  if  received  by  the  General  Conference  of  said  Church,  to  exercise 
the  functions  of  the  episcopal  office  within  the  jurisdiction  of  said  General  Conference. 

"  Louisville,  Ky.,  May  19,  1845.  JOSHUA  SOULE." 

"  DEAR  BRETHREN, — I  decidedly  approve  the  course  which  the  convention  has 
taken  in  establishing  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  believing,  as  I  do  most 
sincerely,  that  it  will  tend,  under  God's  blessing,  to  the  wider  spread  and  more  effi- 
cient propagation  of  the  Gospel  of  the  grace  of  God.  I  accept  the  invitation  of  the 


convention  to  act  as  one  of  the  superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
South,  and  pledge  myself,  in  humble  dependence  upon  Divine  grace,  to  use  my  best 
efforts  to  promote  the  cause  of  God  in  the  interesting  and  extensive  field  of  labour 
assigned  me. 

"  May  the  blessing  of  God  be  upon  us  mutually,  in  our  laborious  field  of  action, 
and,  finally,  may  we  all,  with  our  .several  charges,  be  gathered  to  the  home  of  God 
and  the  good  in  heaven  !  Affectionately  your  brother  and  fellow-labourer, 

"  Louisville,  May,  1845.  JAMES  0.  ANDREW." 

The  Pastoral  Address  referred  to  by  Mr.  Lord  was  in  these  words  : — 

"  To  the  ministers  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  to  all  the  brethren  of  their  pastoral  oversight,  the  convention  of 
said  annual  conferences  address  this  letter,  with  Christian  salutation. 

"  We  gratefully  regard  it  matter  of  congratulation,  beloved  brethren,  for  which 
our  thanks  should  be  offered  at  the  throne  of  grace,  that  we  have  been  enabled  to 
conduct  the  business  confided  to  us  by  you,  with  great  harmony,  and  except,  perhaps, 
some  inconsiderable  shades  of  difference  on  points  of  minor  import,  with  unexampled 
unanimity.  Our  agreement  on  all  questions  of  importance,  has  probably  been  as  per- 
fect as  the  weakness  of  human  knowledge  might  allow,  or  reason  should  require. 

"  For  full  information  of  all  that  we  have  done,  we  refer  you  to  the  journal  of  our 
proceedings,  and  the  documents  which  accompany  it ;  particularly  the  reports  of  the 
committee  on  organization  and  on  missions.  This  latter  interest  we  have  made 
the  subject  of  a  special  letter,  wishing  to  bring  it  immediately  to  the  notice  of  all  our 
Churches  and  congregations,  (to  whom  we  have  requested  the  letter  might  be  read,) 
to  engage  their  instant  liberality. 

"  We  made  it  a  point  of  early  inquiry,  in  the  course  of  our  proceedings,  to  ascer- 
tain with  what  unanimity  the  annual  conferences  represented  by  us,  and  the  entire 
body  of  the  ministry  and  membership  within  their  general  bounds,  were  known  to 
have  concurred  in  sustaining  the  Declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates  in  the  late 
General  Conference,  and  in  approving  of  the  Plan  provided  by  that  Conference  for 
our  being  constituted  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  separate  from  the  North. 
The  committee  on  organization,  being  composed  of  two  members  from  each  of  the 
annual  conferences,  was  furnished  with  ample  means  of  obtaining  satisfactory  infor- 
mation. The  members  of  the  committee  held  meetings  with  their  several  delega- 
tions apart,  and  on  a  comparison  of  their  several  reports  carefully  made,  it  was  found, 
that  both  as  to  the  members  of  the  annual  conferences,  and  the  local  ministry  and 
membership  of  our  entire  territory,  the  declaration  had  been  sustained,  and  a  separate 
organization  called  for,  by  as  great  majority  as  ninety-Jive  to  Jive.  Nor  did  it  appear 
that  even  Jive  in  a  hundred  were  disposed  to  array  themselves  against  their  brethren, 
whose  interests  were  identical  with  their  own  ;  but  that  part  were  Northern  brethren 
sojourning  in  our  borders,  and  part  were  dwelling  in  sections  of  the  country  where 
the  questions  involved  did  not  materially  concern  their  Christian  privileges,  or  those 
of  the  slaves  among  them.  So  great  appears  to  have  been  the  unanimity  of  opinion 
prevailing,  both  among  the  pastors  and  the  people,  as  to  the  urgent  necessity  of  the 
great  measure  which  we  were  deputed  to  effect,  by  organizing  on  the  basis  of  the 
Discipline,  and  the  Plan  provided  by  the  late  General  Conference,  THE  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH. 

"  That  on  so  grave  a  question,  concerning  interests  so  sacred,  and  affecting  so  nu- 
merous a  people,  spread  over  the  vast  extent  of  the  country  from  Missouri  to  the 
Atlantic  Ocean,  and  from  Virginia  to  Texas,  there  should  be  found  some  who  dissent, 
is  what  we  could  not  but  expect.  But  that  the  number  dissenting  should  have  been 
so  small,  compared  to  the  number  of  those  who  have  required  us  to  act,  is,  at  least 
to  our  minds,  conclusive  proof  of  the  absolute  necessity  of  this  action,  as  affording 
the  only  means  left  in  our  power  to  preserve  the  Church  in  the  more  Southern 
States  from  hopeless  ruin.  Indeed  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and  the  provisional 
Plan  for  a  separate  Southern  connexion,  must  have  immediately  broken  up  all  our 
missions  to  the  people  of  colour,  and  subjected  their  classes  in  most  of  the  Southern 
circuits  to  ruinous  deprivations.  Of  this,  the  evidence  has  been  unquestionable. 
And  it  must  appear  to  you,  brethren,  that  for  whatever  reason  so  great  an  evil  was 
threatened  for  a  cause  which  the  Southern  delegates  did  nothing  to  produce,  but  re- 


122 

sisted  in  the  General  Conference,  that  evil  could  not  fail  of  being  inflicted  with 
redoubled  violence,  and  to  a  still  greater  extent,  if  we,  having  a  platform  legally 
furnished  for  a  separate  organization,  should  hesitate  a  moment  to  avail  ourselves  of  it. 
It  would  be,  in  effect,  to  put  ourselves,  in  relation  to  the  laws  and  policy  of  the 
Southern  people,  in  the  same  position  which  was  so  injuriously  offensive  in  our 
Northern  brethren,  while  it  could  not  be  plead  in  extenuation  of  the  fault,  that  we 
were  Northern  men,  and  ignorant  of  the  state  of  affairs  at  the  South.  Into  such  a  po- 
sition we  could  not  possibly  put  ourselves ;  nor  can  we  think  that  reasonable  men 
would  require  us  to  do  so. 

"  We  avow,  brethren,  and  we  do  it  with  the  greatest  solemnity,  that  while  we 
have  thus  been  laid  under  the  imperative  force  of  an  absolute  necessity  to  organize 
the  Southern  and  South- Western  conferences  into  an  independent  ecclesiastical  con- 
nexion, whose  jurisdiction  shall  be  exclusive  of  all  interference  on  the  part  of  the 
North,  we  do  not  withdraw  from  the  true  Christian  and  catholic  pale  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  And  that  whilst  we  have  complained,  with  grievous  cause,  of 
the  power  of  the  majority  of  the  General  Conference,  as  that  power  has  been  con- 
strued and  exercised,  we  have  not  complained,  and  have  no  complaint,  against  the 
Church  in  itself.  The  General  Conference,  or  a  majority  thereof,  is  not  the  Church. 
Nor  is  it  possible  that  that  should  be  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  with- 
draws the  ministry  of  the  Gospel  from  the  poor,  and  turns  her  aside  from  her  calling 
of  God,  '  to  spread  Scripture  holiness  over  these  lands,'  in  order  to  fulfil  some  other 
errand,  no  matter  what.  We  could  not  be  Methodists  at  all,  as  we  have  been  taught 
what  Methodism  is,  if,  with  our  knowledge  of  its  nature,  its  aim,  its  constitution,  its 
discipline,  and  of  the  ruin  inevitable  to  the  work  of  the  ministry  in  most  of  the  South- 
em  States,  if  not  in  all  of  them,  we  should  still  cleave  to  a  Northern  jurisdiction ; 
we  nevertheless  could  not  be  persuaded  to  yield  the  Gospel  for  a  jurisdictional  affinity 
with  brethren,  who,  we  believe  in  our  hearts,  cannot  govern  us  without  great  injury 
to  the  cause  of  Christ  in  most  parts  of  our  work.  If  we  err,  it  is  the  spirit  of  Metho- 
dism which  prompts  us  to  the  error.  We  '  call  God  for  a  record,'  that,  as  far  as  we 
know  our  hearts,  we  intend  nothing,  we  desire  nothing,  we  do  nothing,  having  any  other 
object  or  aim,  but  that  the  Gospel  may  be  preached,  without  let  or  hindrance,  in  all 
parts  of  our  country,  and  especially  to  the  poor.  There  is  nothing  belonging  of  right. 
to  the  Church — her  doctrines,  her  discipline,her  economy,  her  usages,  her  efficiency — 
which  we  do  not  cherish  in  our  inmost  hearts.  It  is  not  the  Church,  not  anything 
proper  to  the  Church,  in  her  character  as  Christ's  body,  and  consecrated  to  the  pro- 
motion of  his  cause  in  the  earth,  which  we  would  disown,  or  depart  from,  or  oppose  ; 
but  only  such  a  position  in  the  Church  as  some  of  her  sons  would  force  us  into,  an- 
tagonistic to  her  principles,  her  policy,  and  her  calling  of  God.  Nor  yet  can  we  be 
charged  with  any  factious  or  schismatic  opposition  to  the  General  Conference,  for  we 
have  done  nothing,  and  mean  to  do  nothing,  not  authorized  by  express  enactment  of 
that  body,  in  view  of  the  very  emergency  which  compels  our  action. 

"  It  had  been  too  much  to  expect,  considering  the  weakness  of  men,  that,  suddenly 
roused  to  resistance,  as  the  Southern  Churches  were,  by  the  unlooked-for  action  in 
the  cases  of  Bishop  Andrew  and  brother  Harding,  there  should  not,  in  some  instances, 
have  escaped  expressions  of  resentment  and  unkindness.  Or  that,  put  to  the  defence 
of  the  majority  of  the  General  Conference,  where  the  evil  complained  of  was  so  seri- 
ous, the  advocates  of  that  majority  should  not  sometimes  have  expressed  themselves 
in  terms  which  seemed  harsh  and  unjust.  We  deeply  deplore  it,  and  pray  that,  for  the 
time  to  come,  such  exhibitions  of  a  mortifying  frailty  may  give  place  to  Christian  mode- 
ration. We  invoke  the  spirit  of  peace  and  holiness.  That  brother  shall  be  esteemed 
as  deserving  best,  who  shall  do  most  for  the  promotion  of  peace.  Surely  this  is  a 
time  of  all  others,  in  our  day,  when  we  should  seek  and  pursue  peace.  A  continu- 
ance of  strife  between  North  and  South  must  prove  prejudicial  on  both  sides.  The 
separation  is  made — formally,  legally  made — and  let  peace  ensue.  In  Christ's  name 
let  there  be  peace.  Whatever  is  needful  to  be  done,  or  worth  the  doing,  may  be  done 
in  peace.  We  especially  exhort  brethren  of  the  border  conferences  and  societies,  to 
forbear  each  other  in  love,  and  labour  after  peace.  Let  every  one  abide  by  the  law 
of  the  General  Conference,  with  respect  to  our  bounds,  and  choose  for  himself  with 
Christian  temper,  and  permit  others  to  choose  without  molestation,  between  North 
and  South.  Our  chief  care  should  be  to  maintain  '  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond 
of  peace.'  Methodism,  preserved  in  what  makes  it  one  the  world  over — the  purity 
of  its  doctrines,  the  efficiency  of  its  discipline,  its  unworldliness,  its  zeal  for  God,  its 


123 

self-devotion — is  of  infinitely  greater  value  than  a  question  of  boundary  or  General 
Conference  jurisdiction  merely. 

"  And  now,  brethren,  beseeching  you  to  receive  the  word  of  exhortation  which  we 
have  herein  briefly  addressed  to  you,  and  humbly  invoking  the  blessings  of  God  upon 
you,  according  to  the  riches  of  his  grace  in  Christ  our  Lord,  praying  for  you,  as  we 
always  do,  that  you  may  abound  in  every  good  work,  and  confiding  in  your  prayers 
for  us,  that  we  may  be  found  one  with  you  in  faith  and  charity  at  the  appearing  of 
Jesus  Christ,  we  take  leave  of  you,  and  return  from  the  work  which  we  have  now 
fulfilled,  to  renew  our  labours  with  you  and  among  you  in  the  Lord. 

"  JAMES  O.  ANDREW,  President. 
"  THOMAS  0.  SUMMERS,  Secretary. 

"  LOUISVILLE,  Kentucky,  May  16,  1845." 

The  report  of  the  Committee  on  Organization,  on  page  67,  which  Mr.  Lord  com- 
mended to  the  attention  of  the  Court  as  an  able  document,  containing  nearly  all  the 
argument  on  that  side,  is  in  these  words  : — 

"  The  committee  appointed  to  inquire  into  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  a  sepa- 
rate organization  of  the  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  for  the  purpose  of  a  separate  General  Conference  connexion 
and  jurisdiction,  within  the  limits  of  said  States  and  conferences,  having  had  the  en- 
tire subject  under  careful  and  patient  consideration,  together  with  the  numerous  peti- 
tions, instructions,  resolutions,  and  propositions  for  adjustment  and  compromise, 
referred  to  them  by  the  convention,  offer  the  following  as  their 

"  REPORT. 

"  In  view  of  the  extent  to  which  the  great  questions  in  controversy,  between  the 
North  and  the  South  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  been  discussed,  and 
by  consequence  must  be  understood  by  the  parties  more  immediately  interested,  it 
has  not  been  deemed  necessary  by  the  committee  to  enter  into  any  formal  or  elabo- 
rate examination  of  the  general  subject,  beyond  a  plain  and  comprehensive  statement 
of  the  facts  and  principles  involved,  which  may  place  it  in  the  power  of  all  concerned, 
to  do  justice  to  the  convictions  and  motives  of  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church, 
in  resisting  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  and 
its  xmconstitutional  assumption  of  right  and  power  in  other  respects  ;  and  also  pre- 
senting, in  a  form  as  brief  and  lucid  as  possible,  some^of  the  principal  grounds  of  ac- 
tion, had  in  view  by  the  South,  in  favouring  the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference  at  its  last  session. 

"  On  the  subject  of  the  legitimate  right,  and  the  full  and  proper  authority  of  the 
convention  to  institute,  determine,  and  finally  act  upon  the  inquiry,  referred  to  the 
committee  to  deliberate  and  report  upon,  the  committee  entertain  no  doubt  whatever. 
Apart  from  every  other  consideration  which  might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  ques- 
tion, the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  the  Plan  of  jurisdictional  Separation  adopted 
by  that  body,  gave  full  and  express  authority  to  '  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States,'  to  judge  of  the  propriety,  and  decide  upon  the  necessity,  of  organiz- 
ing a  '  separate  ecclesiastical  connexion'  in  the  South.  And  not  only  did  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  invest  this  right  in  '  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,' 
without  limitation  or  reserve,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  investment,  and  exclusively  with 
regard  to  every  other  division  of  the  Church,  and  all  other  branches  or  powers  of 
the  government,  but  left  the  method  of  official  determination  and  the  mode  of  action, 
in  the  exercise  or  assertion  of  the  right,  to  the  free  and  untrammelled  discretion  of 
the  conferences  interested.  These  conferences,  thus  accredited  by  the  General 
Conference  to  judge  and  act  for  themselves,  confided  the  right  and  trust  of  decision 
and  action,  in  the  premises,  to  delegates  regularly  chosen  by  these  bodies  respective- 
ly, upon  a  uniform  principle  and  fixed  ratio  of  representation,  previously  agreed  upon 
by  each,  in  constitutional  session,  and  directed  them  to  meet  in  general  convention, 
in  the  city  of  Louisville,  May,  1845,  for  this  and  other  purposes,  authorized  by  the 
General  Conference,  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  way.  All  the  right  and  power, 
therefore,  of  the  General  Conference,  in  any  way  connected  with  the  important  deci- 
sion in  question,  were  duly  and  formally  transferred  to  '  the  annual  conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States,'  and  exclusively  invested  in  them.  And  as  this  investment 


124 

was  obviously  for  the  purpose,  that  such  right  and  power  might  be  exercised  by  them, 
in  any  mode  they  might  prefer,  not  inconsistent  with  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the 
investment,  the  delegates  thus  chosen,  one  hundred  in  number,  and  representing  six- 
teen annual  conferences,  under  commission  of  the  General  Conference,  here  and  now 
assembled  in  convention,  have  not  only  all  the  right  and  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, as  transferred  to  '  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,'  but  in 
addition,  all  the  right  and  power  of  necessity  inherent  in  these  bodies,  as  constituent 
parties,  giving  birth  and  power  to  the  General  Conference  itself,  as  the  common 
federal  council  of  the  Church.  It  follows  hence,  that  for  all  the  purposes  specified 
and  understood  in  this  preliminary  view  of  the  subject,  the  convention  possesses  all 
the  right  and  power,  both  of  the  General  Conference  and  the  sixteen  '  annual  confer- 
ences in  the  slaveholding  States,'  jointly  and  severally  considered.  The  ecclesi- 
astical and  conventional  right,  therefore,  of  this  body,  to  act  in  the  premises,  and  act 
conclusively,  irrespective  of  the  whole  Church,  and  all  its  powers  of  government  be- 
side, is  clear  and  undoubted.  As  the  moral  right,  however,  to  act  as  proposed  in  the 
General  Conference  Plan  of  jurisdictional  Separation,  rests  upon  entirely  different 
grounds,  and  will  perhaps  be  considered  as  furnishing  the  only  allowable  warrant  of 
action,  notwithstanding  constitutional  right,  it  may  be  necessary  at  least  to  glance  at 
the  grave  moral  reasons,  creating  the  necessity,  the  high  moral  compulsions,  by 
which  the  Southern  conferences  and  Church  have  been  impelled  to  the  course  of  ac- 
tion, which  it  is  the  intention  of  this  report  to  explain  and  vindicate,  as  not  only  right 
and  reasonable,  but  indispensable  to  the  character  and  welfare  of  Southern  Methodism. 

"  The  preceding  statements  and  reasoning,  present  no  new  principle  or  form  of 
action  in  the  history  of  the  Church.  Numerous  instances  might  be  cited,  in  the 
constitutional  history  of  Church  polity,  in  which  high  moral  necessity,  in  the  absence 
of  any  recognised  conventional  right,  has  furnished  the  only  and  yet  sufficient  war- 
rant for  ecclesiastical  movements  and  arrangements,  precisely  similar  in  character 
with  that  contemplated  in  the  plan  of  a  separate  Southern  Connexion  of  the  Method- 
ist Episcopal  Church,  adopted  by  the  late  General  Conference.  Wesleyan  Me- 
thodism, in  all  its  phases  and  aspects,  is  a  most  pertinent  illustration  of  the  truth  we 
assume,  and  the  fitness  and  force  of  the  example  must  go  far  to  preclude  the  neces- 
sity of  any  other  proof.  It  was  on  the  specific  basis  of  such  necessity,  without 
conventional  right,  that  the  great  Wesleyan  Conference  arose  in  England.  It  was 
upon  the  same  basis,  as  avowed  by  Wesley,  that  the  American  Connexion  became 
separate  and  independent,  and  this  Connexion  again  avows  the  same  principle  of 
action,  in  the  separation  and  establishment  of  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
Canada,  whose  organization  took  place  by  permission  and  direction  of  the  same 
authority,  under  which  this  convention  is  now  acting  for  a  similar  purpose. 

"  Should  it  appear  in  the  premises  of  the  action  proposed,  that  a  high  moral  and 
religious  duty  is  devolved  upon  the  ministry  and  membership  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  in  the  South, — devolved  upon  us  by  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church, 
and  the  providential  appointments  of  our  social  condition,  which  we  cannot  neglect 
without  infidelity  to  a  high  moral  trust,  but  which  we  cannot  fulfil  in  connexional 
union  with  the  Northern  portion  of  the  Church,  under  the  same  General  Conference 
jurisdiction,  owing  to  causes  connected  with  the  civil  institutions  of  the  country,  and 
beyond  the  control  of  the  Church, — then  a  strong  moral  necessity  is  laid  upon  us, 
which  assumes  the  commanding  character  of  a  positive  duty,  under  sanction  of  Di- 
vine right,  to  dissolve  the  ties  and  bonds  of  a  single  General  Conference  jurisdiction, 
and  in  its  place  substitute  one  in  the  South,  which  will  not  obstruct  us  in  the  per- 
formance of  duty,  or  prevent  us  from  accomplishing  the  great  objects  of  the  Christian 
ministry  and  Church  organization.  From  a  careful  survey  of  the  entire  field  of  facts 
and  their  relations — the  whole  range  of  cause  and  effect,  as  connected  with  the 
subject-matter  of  this  report — it  is  confidently  believed  that  the  great  warrant  of 
moral  necessity,  not  less  than  unquestionable  ecclesiastical  right,  fully  justified  this 
convention  in  the  position  they  are  about  to  take,  as  a  separate  organic  division  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  authority  of  its  chief  synod, — '  the  delegates  of  all 
the  several  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled.'  One  of  the  two 
main  issues,  which  have  decided  the  action  of  the  Southern  conferences,  relates,  as 
all  know,  to  the  assumed  right  of  the  Church  to  control  the  question  of  slavery,  by 
means  of  the  ordinary  and  fluctuating  provisions  of  Church  legislation,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  superior  control  of  State  policy  and  civil  law.  From  all  the  evidence 
accessible  in  the  case,  the  great  masses  of  the  ministry  and  membership  of  the  Me- 


125 

thodist  Episcopal  Church,  North  and  South,  present  an  irreconcilable  opposition  of 
conviction  and  feeling  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  rights  of  the 
Church  to  interfere  with  the  question — the  one  claiming  unlimited  right  of  inter- 
ference to  the  full  extent  the  Church  may,  at  any  time  or  from  any  cause,  be  con- 
cerned ;  and  the  other  resisting  alike  the  assumption  or  exercise  of  any  such  right, 
because,  in  nearly  all  the  slaveholding  States,  such  a  course  of  action  must  bring 
the  Church  in  direct  conflict  with  the  civil  authority,  to  which  the  Church  has 
pledged  subjection  and  support  in  the  most  solemn  and  explicit  forms,  and  from  the 
obligations  of  which  she  cannot  retreat  without  dishonouring  her  own  laws,  and  the 
neglect  and  violation  of  some  of  the  plain  and  most  imperative  requirements  of 
Christianity.  Under  such  circumstances  of  disagreement — in  such  a  state  of  adverse 
conviction  and  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  North  and  South  of  the  Church — it  is  be- 
lieved that  the  two  great  sections  of  the  Church,  thus  situated,  in  relation  to  each 
other,  by  causes  beyond  the  control  of  either  party,  cannot  remain  together  and  suc- 
cessfully prosecute  the  high  and  common  aims  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church 
organization,  under  the  same  General  Conference  jurisdiction.  The  manifest  want 
of  uniformity  of  opinion  and  harmony  of  co-operation,  must  always  lead,  as  hereto- 
fore, to  struggles  and  results  directly  inconsistent  with  the  original  intention  of  the 
Church,  in  establishing  a  common  jurisdiction,  to  control  all  its  general  interests. 
And  should  it  appear  that,  by  a  division  and  future  duality  of  such  jurisdiction,  as 
authorized  by  the  late  General  Conference,  the  original  purposes  of  the  Church  can 
better  be  accomplished,  or  rather,  that  they  can  be  accomplished  in  no  other  way, 
how  can  the  true  and  proper  unity  of  the  Church  be  maintained  except  by  yielding 
to  the  necessity,  and  having  a  separate  General  Conference  jurisdiction  for  each 
division]  By  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church  generally,  slavery  is  regarded  as 
strictly  a  civil  institution,  exclusively  in  custody  of  the  civil  power,  and  as  a  regula- 
tion of  State  beyond  the  reach  of  Church  interference  or  control,  except  as  civil  law 
and  right  may  be  infringed  by  ecclesiastical  assumption.  By  the  Northern  portion 
of  the  Church,  individuals  are  held  responsible  for  the  alleged  injustice  and  evil  of  re- 
lations and  rights,  created  and  protected  by  the  organic  and  municipal  laws  of  the  gov- 
ernment and  country,  and  which  relations  and  rights,  in  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
slaveholding  States,  are  not  under  individual  control  in  any  sense  or  to  any  extent. 

"  Both  portions  of  the  Church  are  presumed  to  act  from  principle  and  conviction, 
and  cannot,  therefore,  recede ;  and  how,  under  such  circumstances,  is  it  possible  to 
prevent  the  most  fearful  disunion,  with  all  the  attendant  evils  of  contention  and  strife, 
except  by  allowing  each  section  a  separate  and  independent  jurisdiction,  the  same  in 
character  and  purpose  with  the  one  to  which  both  have  hitherto  been  subject  1  What 
fact,  truth,  or  principle,  not  merely  of  human  origin,  and  therefore  of  doubtful  au- 
thority, can  be  urged,  as  interposing  any  reasonable  obstacle  to  a  change  of  juris- 
diction, merely  modal  in  character,  and  simply  designed  to  adapt  a  single  principle 
of  Church  government,  not  pretended  to  be  of  Divine  obligation  or  Scripture  origin, 
to  the  character  and  features  of  the  civil  government  of  the  country  1  Nothing 
essential  to  Church  organization  ;  nothing  essentially  distinctive  of  Methodism, — even 
American  Methodism, — is  proposed  to  be  disturbed,  or  even  touched,  by  the  ar- 
rangement. It  is  a  simple  division  of  general  jurisdiction,  for  strong  moral  reasons, 
arising  out  of  the  civil  relations  and  position  of  the  parties,  intending  to  accom* 
plish  for  both,  what  it  is  demonstrated  by  experiment  cannot  be  accomplished  by  one 
common  jurisdiction,  as  now  constituted,  and  should,  therefore,  under  the  stress  of 
such  moral  necessity,  be  attempted  in  some  other  way. 

"  The  question  of  slavery,  more  or  less  intimately  interwoven  with  the  interests 
and  destiny  of  nine  millions  of  human  beings,  in  the  United  States,  is  certainly  of 
sufficient  importance,  coming  up  as  it  has  in  the  recent  history  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  and  as  it  does  in  the  deliberations  of  this  convention,  to  authorize 
any  merely  modal  or  even  organic  changes  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  should 
it  appear  obvious  that  the  original  and  avowed  purposes  of  the  Church  will  be  more 
effectively  secured  and  promoted  by  the  change  proposed,  than  by  continuing  the 
present  or  former  system.  The  evidence  before  the  committee,  establishes  the  fact 
in  the  clearest  manner  possible,  that,  throughout  the  Southern  conferences,  the 
ministry  and  membership  of  the  Church,  amounting  to  nearly  500,000,  in  the  pro- 
portion of  about  ninety-five  in  the  hundred,  deem  a  division  of  jurisdiction  indis- 
pensable to  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  in  the  Southern  and  South- Western  confer- 
ences of  the  slaveholding  States  ;  and  this  fact  alone,  must  go  far  to  establish  the 


126 

right,  while  it  demonstrates  the  necessity,  of  the  separate  jurisdiction,  contemplated 
in  the  Plan  of  General  Conference,  and  adopted  by  that  body  in  view  of  such  neces- 
sity, as  likely  to  exist  The  interests  of  State,  civil  law,  and  public  opinion,  in  the 
South,  imperiously  require,  that  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church  shall  have  no 
part  in  the  discussion  and  agitation  of  this  subject  in  the  chief  councils  of  the  Church. 
In  this  opinion,  nearly  universal  in  the  South,  we  concur. 

"  Christ  and  his  apostles — Christianity  and  its  inspired  and  early  teachers — found 
slavery  in  its  most  offensive  and  aggravated  forms,  as  a  civil  institution,  diffused  and 
existing  throughout  nearly  the  entire  field  of  their  administrations  and  influence  ; 
and  yet,  in  the  New  Testament  and  earlier  records  of  the  Church,  we  have  no  legis- 
lation— no  interference — no  denunciation  with  regard  to  it,  not  even  remonstrance 
against  it.  They  found  it  wrought  up  and  vitally  intermingled  with  the  whole 
machinery  of  civil  government  and  order  of  society — so  implicated  with  '  the  powers 
that  be,'  that  Infinite  Wisdom,  and  the  early  pastoral  guides  of  the  Church,  saw  just 
reason  why  the  Church  should  not  interfere  beyond  a  plain  and  urgent  enforcement 
of  the  various  duties  growing  out  of  the  peculiar  relation  of  master  and  slave,  leaving 
the  relation  itself,  as  a  civil  arrangement,  untouched  and  unaffected,  except  so  far  as 
it  seems  obviously  to  have  been  the  Divine  purpose  to  remove  every  form  and  degree 
of  wrong  and  evil  connected  with  the  institutions  of  human  government,  by  a  faithful 
inculcation  of  the  doctrines  and  duties  of  Christianity,  without  meddling  in  any  way 
with  the  civil  polity  of  the  countries  into  which  it  was  introduced.  A  course  pre- 
cisely similar  to  this,  the  example  of  which  should  have  been  more  attractive,  was 
pursued  by  the  great  founder  of  Methodism,  in  all  slaveholding  countries  in  which 
he  established  societies.  Mr.  Wesley  never  deemed  it  proper  to  have  any  rule,  law, 
or  regulation  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  either  in  the  United  States,  the  West  Indies, 
or  elsewhere.  The  effects  of  the  early  and  unfortunate  attempts  of  the  Methodist 
Church  to  meddle  and  interfere,  in  the  legislation  and  practice  of  government  and 
discipline,  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the  United  States,  are  too  well  known  to 
require  comment.  Among  the  more  immediate  results  of  this  short-sighted,  disas- 
trous imprudence,  especially  from  1780  to  1804,  may  be  mentioned  the  watchful 
jealousy  of  civil  government,  and  the  loss  of  public  confidence  throughout  a  very 
large  and  influential  portion  of  the  whole  Southern  community.  These,  and  similar 
developments,  led  the  Church,  by  the  most  careful  and  considerate  steps,  to  the 
adoption,  gradually,  of  a  medium  compromise  course  of  legislation  on  the  subject ; 
until  the  law  of  slavery,  as  it  now  exists  in  the  letter  of  Discipline,  became,  by  the 
last  material  act  of  legislation  in  1816,  the  great  compromise  bond  of  union  be- 
tween the  North  and  the  South  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  The  whole  law  of  the 
Church — all  there  is  in  the  statute-book,  to  govern  North  and  South  on  this  subject — 
is  the  following  : — First :  The  general  rule,  which  simply  prohibits  '  the  buying  or 
selling  of  men,  women,  or  children,  with  an  intention  to  enslave  them.'  Second  : 
'  No  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  hereafter, 
where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  admit  of  emancipation,  and  permit  the 
liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes  an  owner 
of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any  means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our 
Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it  be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves, 
conformably  to  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives.' 

"  Here  is  the  law,  the  whole,  the  only  law  of  the  Church,  containing,  first,  a  prohibi- 
tion, and,  second,  a  grant.  The  prohibition  is,  that  no  member  or  minister  of  the 
Church,  is  allowed  to  purchase  or  sell  a  human  being,  who  is  to  be  enslaved,  or  re- 
duced to  a  state  of  slavery,  by  such  purchase  or  sale.  And  further,  that  no  minister, 
in  any  of  the  grades  of  ministerial  office,  or  other  person,  having  official  standing  in 
the  Church,  can,  if  he  be  the  owner  of  a  slave,  be  allowed  to  sustain  such  official 
relation  to  the  Church,  unless  he  shall  legally  provide  for  the  emancipation  of  such 
slave  or  slaves,  if  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  legal  eman- 
cipation, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom.  Such  is  the  plain  prohibi- 
tion of  law,  binding  upon  all.  The  grant  of  the  law,  however,  is  equally  plain  and 
unquestionable.  It  is,  that  persons  may  purchase  or  sell  men,  women,  or  children, 
provided  such  purchase  or  sale  does  not  involve  the  fact  or  intention  of  enslaving 
them,  or  of  reducing  the  subjects  of  such  purchase  or  sale  to  a  state  of  slavery.  The 
intention  of  the  law  no  doubt  is,  that  this  may  be  done  from  motives  of  humanity, 
and  not  by  any  means  for  the  purpose  of  gam.  But  further,  the  law  distinctly  pro- 
Tides,  that  every  minister,  in  whatever  grade  of  office,  and  every  person  having 


127 

official  standing  of  any  kind  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  being  the  owner  or 
owners  of  slave  property,  shall  be  protected  against  any  forfeiture  of  right,  on  this 
account,  where  the  laws  of  the  State  do  not  admit  of  legal  emancipation,  and  allow 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom  in  the  State  in  which  he  is  emancipated.  Here 
is  the  plain  grant  of  law  to  which  we  allude.  From  the  first  agitation  of  the  subject 
of  slavery  in  the  Church,  the  Northern  portion  of  it  has  been  disposed  to  insist  upon 
further  prohibitory  enactments.  The  South,  meanwhile,  has  always  shown  itself 
ready  to  go  as  far,  by  way  of  prohibition,  as  the  law  in  question  implies,  but  has 
uniformly  resisted  any  attempt  to  impair  Southern  rights  under  protection  of  the 
trrant  of  law  to  which  we  have  asked  attention.  Under  such  circumstances  of  dis- 
agreement and  difficulty,  the  conventional  and  legislative  adjustment  of  the  question, 
as  found  in  the  General  Rule,  but  especially  the  tenth  section  of  the  Discipline,  was 
brought  about,  and  has  always  been  regarded  in  the  South  as  a  great  compromise 
arrangement,  without  strict  adherence  to  which,  the  North  and  the  South  could  not 
remain  together  under  the  same  general  jurisdiction.  That  we  have  not  mistaken 
the  character  of  the  law,  or  misconstrued  the  intention  and  purposes  of  its  enact- 
ment, at  different  times,  we  think  entirely  demonstrable  from  the  whole  history  both 
of  the  legislation  of  the  Church  and  the  judicial  and  executive  administration  of  the 
government.  The  full  force  and  bearing  of  the  law,  however,  were  more  distinctly 
brought  in  view,  and  authoritatively  asserted,  by  the  General  Conference  of  1840, 
after  the  most  careful  examination  of  the  whole  subject,  and  the  judicial  determina- 
tion of  that  body,  connected  with  the  language  of  the  Discipline,  just  quoted,  gives 
in  still  clearer  light  the  true  and  only  law  of  the  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery. 
After  deciding  various  other  principles  and  positions  incidental  to  the  main  question, 
the  decision  is  summed  up  in  the  following  words  : — '  While  the  general  rule  (or 
law)  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  relating  to  those  States  whose  laws  admit  of  emanci- 
pation, and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  should  be  firmly  and  con- 
stantly enforced,  the  exception  to  the  general  rule  (or  law)  applying  to  those  States 
where  emancipation,  as  defined  above,  is  not  practicable,  should  be  recognised  and 
protected  with  equal  firmness  and  impartiality  ;  therefore — 

"  '  Resolved  by  the  several  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled, 
That  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  general  rule  (or  law)  of  the  Church,  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of  slave  pro- 
perty, in  States  or  Territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation  and 
permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the  elec- 
tion or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered  as  operating 
any  forfeiture  of  right,  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination.'  This  decision  of  the 
General  Conference  was  not  objected  to  or  dissented  from  by  a  single  member  of  that 
body.  It  was  the  unanimous  voice  of  the  great  representative  and  judicial  council 
of  the  Church,  then  acting  in  the  character  of  a  high  court  of  appeals  for  the  decision 
of  an  important  legal  question.  It  will  be  perceived  how  strikingly  the  language  of 
this  decision  accords  with  both  the  features  of  the  law  of  slavery  which  we  have 
thought  important  to  notice — the  prohibition  and  the  grant  of  law  in  the  case ;  what 
may  not  be  done  as  the  general  rule,  and  at  the  same  time  what  may  be  done  under 
the  provisional  exception  to  the  general  law,  without  forfeiture  of  right  of  any  kind. 
It  is  also  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  besides  the  plain  assurance  of  the  original 
law,  that  where  emancipation  is  not  legally  practicable,  and  the  emancipated  slave  al- 
lowed to  enjoy  freedom,  or  where  it  is  practicable  to  emancipate,  but  the  emancipated 
slave  cannot  enjoy  freedom,  emancipation  is  not  required  of  any  owner  of  slaves  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  from  the  lowest  officer  up  to  the  bishop,  but  the 
rights  of  all  thus  circumstanced  are  protected  and  secured,  notwithstanding  their 
connexion  with  slavery.  Besides  this,  the  full  and  elaborate  decision  of  the  General 
Conference,  as  a  grave  and  formal  adjudication  had  upon  all  the  issues  involved  in  the 
question,  published  to  all  who  where  in,  or  might  be  disposed  to  enter  the  Church, 
that  the  law  of  slavery  applied  to  States  where  emancipation  is  impracticable,  and 
the  freed  slave  not  allowed  to  enjoy  freedom,  this  clear  and  unambiguous  decision, 
by  the  highest  authority  of  the  Church,  leaves  the  owner  of  slaves  upon  the  ground — 
upon  a  basis — of  the  most  perfect  equality  with  other  ministers  of  the  Church  having 
no  connexion  with  slavery.  Such,  then,  is  the  law  ;  such  its  construction  ;  such  the 
official  and  solemn  pledge  of  the  Church.  And  these  had,  to  a  great  extent,  restored 
the  lost  confidence  and  allayed  the  jealous  apprehensions  of  the  South,  in  relation 


128 

to  the  purposes  of  the  Church  respecting  slavery.  There  was  in  the  South  no  dis- 
position to  disturb,  discuss,  or  in  any  way  agitate  the  subject.  The  law  was  not 
objected  to  or  complained  of,  but  was  regarded  as  a  settled  compromise  between 
the  parties,  a  medium  arrangement  on  the  ground  of  mutual  concession,  well  calcu- 
lated to  secure  and  promote  the  best  interests  of  the  Church,  North  and  South. 

"  That  this  law — this  great  compromise  conservative  arrangement,  which  had  been 
looked  to  as  the  only  reliable  bond  of  jurisdictional  union  between  the  North  and 
South  for  nearly  half  a  century — was  practically  disregarded  and  abandoned  by  the 
last  General  Conference,  in  the  memorable  cases  of  Harding  and  Andrew,  both  by 
judicial  construction  and  virtual  legislation,  manifestly  inconsistent  with  its  provisions 
and  purposes,  and  subversive  of  the  great  objects  of  its  enactment,  has  been  too  fear- 
fully demonstrated  by  various  forms  of  proof,  to  require  more  than  a  brief  notice  in 
this  report.  The  actual  position  of  the  Church  was  suddenly  reversed,  and  its  long- 
established  policy  entirely  changed.  The  whole  law  of  the  Church  and  the  most 
important  adjudications  had  upon  it,  were  treated  as  null  and  obsolete,  and  that  body 
proceeded  to  a  claim  of  right,  and  course  of  action,  amounting  to  a  virtual  repeal  of 
all  law,  and  new  and  capricious  legislation  on  the  most  difficult  and  delicate  question 
ever  introduced  into  the  councils  of  the  Church,  or  named  upon  its  statute-book. 

"  By  no  fair  construction  of  the  law  of  slavery  as  given  above,  could  the  Church 
be  brought  in  conflict  with  civil  legislation  on  the  subject.  It  is  true,  as  demanded 
by  the  convictions  and  opinions  of  the  Church,  testimony  was  borne  against  the  evil 
of  slavery,  but  it  was  done  without  conflicting  with  the  polity  and  laws  of  any  por- 
tion of  the  country.  No  law,  for  example,  affected  the  lay-membership  of  the 
Church  with  regard  to  slaveholding ;  the  Church  gave  its  full  permission  that  the 
private  members  of  the  Church  might  own  and  hold  slaves  at  discretion ;  and  the 
inference  is  indubitable,  that  the  Church  did  not  consider  simple  slaveholding  as  a 
moral  evil,  personally  attaching  to  the  mere  fact  of  being  the  owner  or  holder  of 
slaves.  The  evil  charged  upon  slavery  must  of  necessity  have  been  understood  of 
other  aspects  of  the  subject,  and  could  not  imply  moral  obliquity,  without  impeach- 
ing the  integrity  and  virtue  of  the  Church.  Moreover,  where  the  laws  precluded 
emancipation,  the  ministry  were  subjected  to  no  disabilities  of  any  kind,  and  the  re- 
quirements of  the  Church,  in  relation  to  slavery,  were  not  at  least  in  anything  like 
direct  conflict  with  civil  law.  In  contravention,  however,  of  the  plain  and  long- 
established  law  of  the  Church,  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  the 
well-known  instances  cited,  brought  the  Church  into  a  state  of  direct  and  violent  an- 
tagonism with  the  civil  authority  and  the  rights  of  citizenship,  throughout  all  the 
slaveholding  States.  This  was  not  done  by  the  repeal  of  existing  law,  or  additional 
legislation  by  direct  enactment,  but  in  a  much  more  dangerous  form,  by  the  simple 
process  of  resolution  by  an  irresponsible  majority,  requiring  Southern  ministers  as 
slaveholders,  in  order  to  Church  eligibility  and  equality  of  right  with  non-slavehold- 
ing  ministers  of  the  Church,  to  do  what  cannot  be  done  without  a  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  reside,  and  is  not  required  or  contemplated,  but 
expressly  excepted,  and  even  provided  against,  by  the  law  of  the  Church. 

"  It  will  thus  appear  that  the  entire  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  was  in  direct  conflict  with  the  law,  both  of  the  Church  and  the  land, 
and  could  not  have  been  submitted  to  by  the  South,  without  the  most  serious  detri- 
ment to  the  interests  of  the  Church.  The  action  in  the  instance  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
was,  in  the  strongest  and  most  exceptionable  sense,  extra-judicial.  It  was  not  pre- 
tended that  Bishop  Andrew  had  violated  any  law  of  the  Church  ;  so  far  from  this, 
the  only  law  applicable  to  the  case,  gave,  as  we  have  seen,  ample  and  explicit  assur- 
ance of  protection.  So  to  construe  law,  or  so  proceed  to  act  without  reference  to 
law,  as  to  abstract  from  it  its  whole  protective  power,  and  deprive  it  of  all  its  conser- 
vative tendencies  in  the  system,  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous  forms  of  legal  injustice, 
and,  as  a  principle  of  action,  must  be  considered  as  subversive  of  all  order  and  gov- 
ernment. The  late  General  Conference  required  of  Bishop  Andrew,  the  same  being 
equally  true  in  the  case  of  Harding,  as  the  condition  of  his  being  acceptable  to  the 
Church,  the  surrender  of  rights  secured  to  him,  both  by  civil  and  ecclesiastical  law. 
The  purposes  of  law  were  contravened  and  destroyed,  and  its  prerogative  and  place 
usurped  by  mere  opinion. 

"  The  requisition  in  the  case  was  not  only  extra-judicial,  being  made  in  the  absence 
of  anything  like  law  authorizing  the  measure,  but  being  made  at  the  same  tune 
against  law,  it  was  usurpation  ;  and  so  far  as  the  proceeding  complained  of  is  intend- 


129 

ed  to  establish  a  principle  of  action  with  regard'  to  the  future,  it  gives  to  the  General 
Conference  all  the  attributes  of  a  despotism,  claiming  the  right  to  govern  without, 
above,  and  against  law.  The  doctrine  avowed  at  the  late  General  Conference,  and 
practically  endorsed  by  the  majority,  that  that  body  may,  by  simple  resolution,  advi- 
sory, punitive,  or  declaratory,  repeal  an  existing  law  in  relation  to  a  particular  case, 
leaving  it  in  full  force  with  regard  to  other  cases  ;  or  may  enact  a  new  and  different 
law,  and  apply  it  judicially  to  the  individual  case,  which  led  to  the  enactment,  and 
all  in  a  moment,  by  a  single  elevation  of  the  hand,  is  a  position,  a  doctrine  so  utterly 
revolutionary  and  disorganizing,  as  to  place  in  jeopardy  at  once,  both  the  interests 
and  reputation  of  the  Church.  The  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  not  only 
assumed  the  character,  and  usurped  the  place  of  law,  but  was  clearly  an  instance  of 
ex  post  facto  legislation,  by  making  that  an  offence  after  the  act,  which  was  not  such 
before.  The  conduct  charged  as  an  offence,  was  at  the  time,  and  continues  to  be, 
under  the  full  protection  of  a  well-understood  and  standing  law  of  the  Church,  and 
yet  this  conduct  was  made  criminal  and  punishable  by  the  retrospective  action  of  the 
Conference  to  which  we  allude.  The  officially-expressed  will  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, intended  to  govern  and  circumscribe  the  conduct  of  Bishop  Andrew,  without 
reference  to  existing  law,  and  indeed  contrary  to  it,  was  made  the  rule  of  action,  and 
he  found  guilty  of  its  violation,  by  acts  done  before  he  was  made  acquainted  with  it. 
The  conduct  charged  was  in  perfect  consistency  with  the  law  of  the  Church,  and 
could  only  be  wrought  into  an  offence  by  an  ex  post  facto  bearing  of  the  after  action 
of  the  General  Conference. 

"  Bishop  Andrew  became  the  owner  of  slave  property  involuntarily,  several  years 
before  his  marriage,  and  as  the  fact,  and  not  the  extent  of  his  connexion  with  slavery, 
constituted  his  offence,  it  follows,  that  for  a  relation  in  which  he  was  placed  by  the 
action  of  others,  and  the  operation  of  civil  law,  and  in  which,  as  a  citizen  of  Georgia, 
he  was  compelled  to  remain,  or  be  brought  in  conflict  with  the  laws  of  the  State,  he 
was,  in  violation  of  the  pledge  of  public  law,  as  we  have  shown,  arrested  and  pun- 
ished by  the  General  Conference.  That  body,  by  direct  requirement,  such  at  least 
by  implication,  commanded  him  to  free  his  slaves,  or  suffer  official  degradation.  The 
law  of  Georgia  required  him  to  hold  his  slaves,  or  transfer  them  to  be  held  as  such  by 
others,  under  heavy  and  painful  penalties  to  master  and  slave.  To  avoid  ecclesias- 
tical punishment  and  disability,  the  Church  required  him  either  to  leave  the  State  of 
his  residence,  or  violate  its  laws.  In  this  way,  taking  the  judicial  decision  in  Hard- 
ing's  case,  and  the  anomalous  action  in  Bishop  Andrew's,  the  Church  is  placed  in 
most  offensive  conflict  with  the  civil  authority  of  the  state.  Can  any  country  or 
government  safely  allow  the  Church  to  enforce  disobedience  to  civil  law,  as  a  Chris- 
tian duty  1  If  such  attempts  are  made  to  subordinate  the  civil  interests  of  the  state 
to  the  schemes  and  purposes  of  Church  innovation,  prompted  and  sustained  by  the 
bigotry  and  fanaticism  of  large  masses  of  ignorant  and  misguided  zealots  engaged  in 
the  conflict  in  the  name  of  God  and  conscience,  and  for  the  ostensible  purposes  of 
religious  reform,  what  can  be  the  stability  of  civil  government,  or  the  hopes  of  those 
seeking  its  protection  1  And  what,  we  ask,  must  be  the  interests  of  the  South,  in 
connexion  with  such  movements  1 

"  In  the  instance  of  slavery  in  this  country,  it  is  but  too  well-known,  that  such 
antagonism  as  is  indicated  by  the  preceding  facts  and  developments  between  the  pur- 
poses of  the  Church  and  the  policy  of  the  State,  must  result  in  the  most  disastrous 
consequences  to  both.  The  slavery  of  the  Southern  States  can  never  be  reduced  in 
amount,  or  mitigated  in  form,  by  such  a  state  of  things.  The  Southern  States  have 
the  sole  control  of  the  question,  under  the  authority  and  by  contract  of  the  federal 
constitution,  and  all  hope  of  removing  the  evil  of  slavery,  without  destroying  the  na- 
tional compact  and  the  union  of  the  States,  must  connect  with  the  individual  sove- 
reignty of  the  Southern  States,  as  parties  to  the  federal  compact,  and  the  indepen- 
dent policy  of  each  State  in  relation  to  slavery,  as  likely  to  be  influenced  by  moral 
and  political  reasons  and  motives,  brought  to  bear,  by  proper  means  and  methods, 
upon  the  understanding  and  moral  sense  of  the  Southern  people.  All  trespass  upon 
right — whether  as  it  regards  the  rights  of  property  or  of  character — everything  like 
aggression,  mere  denunciation  or  abuse,  must  of  necessity  tend  to  provoke  further 
resistance  on  the  part  of  the  South,  and  lessen  the  influence  the  North  might  other- 
wise have  upon  the  great  mass  of  the  Southern  people,  in  relation  to  this  great  and 
exciting  interest.  The  true  character  and  actual  relations  of  slavery  in  the  United 
States,  are  so  predominantly  ciril  and  political,  that  any  attempt  to  treat  the  subject 

9 


130 

or  control  the  question  upon  purely  moral  and  ecclesiastical  grounds,  can  never  exert 
•  ny  salutary  influence  South,  except  in  so  far  as  tiic  moral  and  ecclesiastical  shall  be 
found  strictly  subordinate  to  the  civil  and  political.  This  mode  of  appeal,  it  is  be- 
lieved, will  never  satisfy  the  North.  The  whole  Northern  portion  of  the  Church, 
speaking  through  their  guides  and  leaders,  is  manifesting  an  increasing  disposition  to 
form  issues  upon  the  subject,  so  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  rights  and  peace  of  the 
slaveholding  States,  that  by  how  far  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  South, 
may  contribute  to  the  bringing  about  of  such  a  state  of  things,  or  may  fail  to  resist  it, 
the  influence  of  Methodism  must  be  depressed,  and  the  interests  of  the  Church  suffer. 
In  addition,  then,  to  the  fact,  that  we  have  already  received  an  amount  of  injury,  be- 
yond what  we  can  bear,  except  under  a  separate  organization,  we  have  the  strongest 
grounds  of  apprehension,  that  unless  we  place  ourselves  in  a  state  of  defence,  and 
prepare  for  independent  action,  under  the  distinct  jurisdiction  we  are  now  authorized 
by  the  General  Conference  to  resolve  upon  and  organize,  we  shall  soon  find  our- 
selves so  completely  subjected  to  the  adverse  views  and  policy  of  the  Northern  ma- 
jority, as  to  be  left  without  right  or  remedy,  except  as  a  mere  secession  from  the 
Church.  Now,  the  case  is  entirely  different,  as  we  propose  to  do  nothing  not  autho- 
rized in  the  General  Conference  Plan  of  Separation,  either  expressly  or  by  necessary 
implication.  The  general  view  thus  far  taken  of  the  subject,  is  intended  to  show, 
that  '  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,'  embracing  the  entire 
Church,  South,  have  found  themselves  placed  in  circumstances,  by  the  action  of  the 
General  Conference  in  May  last,  which,  according  to  the  Declaration  of  the  Southern 
delegates,  at  the  time,  render  it  impracticable  to  accomplish  the  objects  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry  and  Church  organization  under  the  present  system  of  General  Confer- 
ence control,  and  showing  by  the  most  clear  and  conclusive  evidence,  that  there 
exists  the  most  urgent  necessity  for  the  '  separate  ecclesiastical  connexion,'  constitu- 
tionally provided  for  by  the  General  Conference  upon  the  basis  of  the  Declaration, 
just  adverted  to.  At  the  date  of  the  Declaration,  the  Southern  delegates  were  fully 
convinced  that  the  frequent  and  exciting  agitation  and  action  in  that  body  on  the 
subject  of  slavery  and  abolition — as  in  Harding's  case,  and  especially  the  proceedings 
in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew — each  being  regarded  as  but  a  practical  exposition  of 
the  principle  of  the  majority — rendered  a  separate  organization  indispensable  to  the 
success  of  Methodism  in  the  South.  The  truth  of  the  Declaration,  so  far  from  being 
called  in  question,  by  the  majority,  was  promptly  conceded  in  the  immediate  action 
the  Conference  had  upon  it,  assigning  the  Declaration  as  the  sole  ground  or  reason  of 
the  action,  which  terminated  in  the  adoption  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  under  which 
we  are  now  acting,  as  a  convention,  and  from  the  spirit  and  intention  of  which,  it  is 
believed  to  be  the  purpose  of  the  convention  not  to  depart,  in  any  of  its  deliberations 
or  final  acts.  Although  the  action  of  this  General  Conference  on  the  subject  of 
slavery,  and  the  relative  adverse  position  of  the  parties  North  and  South,  together 
with  the  irritating  and  exasperating  evils  of  constant  agitation  and  frequent  attempts 
at  legislation,  are  made,  in  the  Declaration,  the  grounds  of  the  avowal,  that  a  separate 
organization  was  necessary  to  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
it  was  by  no  means  intended  to  convey  the  idea,  or  make  the  impression,  that  no 
other  causes  existed  rendering  a  separate  organization  proper  and  necessary  ;  but  as 
the  action  of  the  Conference  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  was  certain  to  involve  the 
Church  in  the  South  in  immediate  and  alarming  difficulty,  and  it  was  believed  that 
this  could  be  so  shown  to  the  majority,  as  to  induce  them  to  consent  to  some  course 
of  action  in  remedy  of  the  evil,  the  complaint  of  the  declaration  was  confined  to  the 
simple  topic  of  slavery.  It  will  be  perceived  that  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  al- 
though prominently  introduced,  is  not  relied  upon  as  exclusively  furnishing  the  data 
of  this  conclusion  at  which  we  have  arrived.  The  entire  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, so  frequently  brought  to  view,  and  which  is  made  the  ground  of  dissent  and 
action,  both  in  the  Protest  and  Declaration  of  the  Southern  delegates,  must  be  under- 
stood, as  belonging  to  the  premises  and  language  employed,  as  including  all  the  prin- 
ciples avowed  as  well  as  the  action  had  by  the  late  General  Conference  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  The  attempt  to  disclaim  the  judicial  character  of  the  action  in 
Bishop  Andrew's  case,  and  show  it  to  be  merely  advisory,  cannot  affect  the  preced- 
ing reasoning :  for,  first,  the  disclaimer  is  as  equivocal  in  character  as  the  original 
action ;  and,  secondly,  the  reasoning  in  support  of  the  disclaimer  negatives  the  sup- 
position of  mere  advice,  because  it  involves  issues  coming  legitimately  within  the 
province  of  judicial  process  and  legal  determination;  and,  thirdly,  Bishop  Andrew  is, 

9* 


by  the  explanation  of  the  disclaimer  itself,  held  as  responsible  for  his  conduct,  in  view 
of  the  alleged  advice,  as  he  could  have  been  held  by  the  original  action  without  the 
explanation.  While,  therefore,  the  explanation  giving  the  original  action  an  advisory 
character,  notwithstanding  the  inconsistency  involved,  fully  protects  Bishops  Soule 
and  Andrew  from  even  the  shadow  of  blame  in  the  course  they  have  pursued,  the 
entire  action  in  the  case,  and  especially  when  connected  with  the  case  of  Harding, 
as  alluded  to  in  the  Declaration,  fully  sustains  the  general  view  of  the  subject  we 
have  taken  in  this  report.  The  Southern  delegates  at  the  General  Conference,  in 
presenting  to  that  body  their  Declaration  and  Protest,  acted,  and  they  continue  to  act, 
as  the  representatives  of  the  South,  under  the  full  conviction  that  the  principles  and 
policy  avowed  by  the  Northern  majority,  are  such  as  to  render  their  public  and  prac- 
tical renunciation  by  the  Southern  Methodist  ministry  and  people,  necessary  to  the 
safety,  not  less  than  the  success  of  the  Church  in  the  South. 

"  Other  views  of  the  subject,  however,  must  claim  a  share  of  our  attention.  Among 
the  many  weighty  reasons  which  influence  the  Southern  conferences  in  seeking  to  be 
released  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  as  now  constituted,  are  the  novel,  and,  as  we  think,  dangerous  doctrines, 
practically  avowed  and  endorsed  by  that  body  and  the  Northern  portion  of  the 
Church  generally,  with  regard  to  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  the  constitu- 
tional rights  and  powers  respectively  of  the  episcopacy  and  the  General  Conference. 
In  relation  to  the  first,  it  is  confidently,  although  most  unaccountably,  maintained 
that  the  six  short  restrictive  rules,  which  were  adopted  in  1808,  and  first  became 
obligatory,  as  an  amendment  to  the  constitution,  in  1812,  are  in  fact  the  true  and  only 
constitution  of  the  Church.  This  single  position,  should  it  become  an  established 
principle  of  action  to  the  extent  it  found  favour  with  the  last  General  Conference, 
must  subvert  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  must  be  seen 
at  once,  that  the  position  leaves  many  of  the  organic  laws  and  most  important  insti- 
tutions of  the  Church  entirely  unprotected,  and  at  the  mercy  of  a  mere  and  ever- 
fluctuating  majority  of  the  General  Conference.  Episcopacy,  for  example,  although 
protected  in  the  abstract,  in  general  terms,  may  be  entirely  superseded  or  destroyed 
by  the  simple  omission  to  elect  or  consecrate  bishops,  neither  of  which  is  provided 
for  in  the  restrictive  articles.  The  whole  itinerant  system,  except  general  superin- 
tendency,  is  without  protection  in  the  restrictive  rules  ;  and  there  is  nothing  in  them 
preventing  the  episcopacy  from  restricting  their  superintendency  to  local  and  settled 
pastors,  rather  than  a  travelling  ministry,  and  thus  destroying  the  most  distinctive 
feature  of  Wesleyan  Methodism.  So  far  as  the  restrictive  rules  are  concerned,  the 
annual  conferences  are  without  protection,  and  might  also  be  destroyed  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  at  any  time.  If  the  new  constitutional  theory  be  correct,  class- 
leaders  and  private  members  are  as  eligible,  upon  the  basis  of  the  constitution,  to  a 
seat  in  the  General  Conference,  as  any  ministers  of  the  Church.  Societies,  too, 
instead  of  annual  conferences,  may  elect  delegates,  and  may  elect  laymen  instead  of 
ministers,  or  local  instead  of  travelling  ministers.  Very  few  indeed  of  the  more  fun- 
damental and  distinguishing  elements  of  Methodism,  deeply  and  imperishably  im- 
bedded in  the  affection  and  veneration  of  the  Church,  and  vital  to  its  very  existence, 
are  even  alluded  to  in  the  restrictive  articles.  This  theory  assumes  the  self-refuted 
absurdity,  that  the  General  Conference  is  in  fact  the  government  of  the  Church,  if 
not  the  Church  itself.  With  no  other  constitution  than  these  mere  restrictions  upon 
the  powers  and  rights  of  the  General  Conference,  the  government  and  discipline  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  a  system  of  organized  laws  and  well-adjusted  in- 
strumentalities for  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  and  the  diffusion  of  piety,  and  whose  liv- 
ing principles  of  energy  and  action  have  so  long  commanded  the  admiration  of  the 
world,  would  soon  cease  even  to  exist.  The  startling  assumption,  that  a  bishop  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  instead  of  holding  office  under  the  constitution,  and  by 
tenure  of  law,  and  the  faithful  performance  of  duty,  is  nothing  in  his  character  of  bishop, 
but  a  mere  officer,  at  will,  of  the  General  Conference,  and  may  accordingly  be  deposed 
at  any  time,  with  or  without  cause,  accusation,  proof,  or  form  of  trial,  as  a  dominant 
majority  may  capriciously  elect,  or  party  interests  suggest ;  and  that  the  General 
Conference  may  do,  by  right,  whatever  is  not  prohibited  by  the  restrictive  rules ; 
and,  with  this  single  exception,  possess  power,  'supreme  and  all-controlling,'  and 
this,  in  all  possible  forms  of  its  manifestation,  legislative,  judicial,  and  executive ; 
the  same  men  claiming  to  be  at  the  same  time  both  the  fountain  and  functionaries  of 
all  the  powers  of  government,  which  powers,  thus  mingled  and  concentrated  into  a 


132 

common  force,  may  at  any  time  be  employed  at  the  prompting  of  their  own  interests, 
caprice,  or  ambition  ; — such  wild  and  revolutionary  assumptions,  so  unlike  the  faith 
and  discipline  of  Methodism,  as  we  have  been  taught  them,  we  are  compelled  to  regard 
as  fraught  with  mischief  and  ruin  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church,  and  as  furnish- 
ing a  strong  additional  reason  why  we  should  avail  ourselves  of  the  warrant  we  now 
have,  but  may  never  again  obtain,  from  the  General  Conference,  to  '  establish  an  eccle- 
siastical connexion,'  embracing  only  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slave-holding  States. 

••  Without  intending  anything  more  than  a  general  specification  of  the  dis- 
abilities, under  which  the  Southern  part  of  the  Church  labours,  in  view  of  existing 
difficulties,  and  must  continue  to  do  so  until  they  are  removed,  we  must  not 
omit  to  state,  that  should  we  submit  to  the  action  of  the  late  General  Conference, 
and  decline  a  separate  organization,  it  would  be  to  place  and  finally  confirm 
the  whole  Southern  ministry  in  the  relation  of  an  inferior  caste,  the  effect  of 
which,  in  spite  of  all  effort  to  the  contrary,  would  be  such  a  relation,  if  not  (as  we 
think)  real  degradation,  of  the  ministry,  as  to  destroy  its  influence  to  a  great,  a  most 
fearful  extent  throughout  the  South.  A  practical  proscription,  under  show  of  legal 
right,  has  long  been  exercised  towards  the  South,  with  regard  to  the  higher  offices 
of  the  Church,  especially  the  episcopacy.  To  this,  however,  the  South  submitted 
with  patient  endurance,  and  was  willing  further  to  submit,  in  order  to  maintain  the 
peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  while  the  principle  involved  was  disavowed,  and  de- 
cided to  be  unjust,  as  by  the  decision  of  the  General  Conference  in  1840.  But  when, 
in  1 844,  the  General  Conference  declared  by  their  action,  without  the  forms  of  legis- 
lative or  judicial  process,  that  the  mere  providential  ownership  of  slave  property,  in  a 
State  where  emancipation  is  legally  prohibited  under  all  circumstances,  and  can  only 
be  effected  by  special  legislative  enactment,  was  hereafter  to  operate  as  a  forfeiture 
of  riuht  in  all  similar  cases,  the  law  of  the  Church  and  the  decision  of  the  preceding 
General  Conference  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding,  the  Southern  ministry  were 
compelled  to  realize,  that  they  were  deliberately  fixed  by  the  brand  of  common 
shame,  in  the  degrading  relation  of  standing  inferiority  to  ministers,  not  actually,  nor 
yet  liable  to  be,  connected  with  slavery,  and  that  they  were  published  to  the  Church 
and  the  world  as  belonging  to  a  caste  in  the  ministry,  from  which  the  higher  officers 
of  the  Church  could  never  be  selected. 

"  To  submit,  under  such  circumstances,  would  have  been  a  practical,  a  most  humi- 
liating recognition  of  the  inferiority  of  caste,  attempted  to  be  fixed  upon  us  by  the 
Northern  majority,  and  would  have  justly  authorized  the  inference  of  a  want  of  con- 
scious integrity  and  self-respect,  well  calculated  to  destroy  both  the  reputation  and 
influence  of  the  ministry  in  all  the  slaveholding  States.  It  may  be  no  virtue  to  avow 
it,  but  we  confess  we  have  no  humility  courting  the  grace  of  such  a  baptism.  The 
higher  objects,  therefore,  of  the  Christian  ministry,  not  less  than  conscious  right  and 
self-respect,  demanded  resistance  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  ministry  and  Church  ; 
and  these  unite  with  other  reasons,  in  vindicating  the  plea  of  necessity,  upon  which 
the  meeting  and  action  of  this  convention  are  based,  with  the  consent  and  approval 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  variety  of  in- 
terests involved,  renders  it  necessary  that  the  brief  view  of  the  subject  we  are  allowed 
to  take,  be  varied  accordingly. 

"  Unless  the  Southern  conferences  organize  as  proposed,  it  is  morally  certain,  in 
view  of  the  evidence  before  the  committee,  that  the  Gospel,  now  regularly  and  suc- 
cessfully dispensed  by  the  ministers  of  these  conferences  to  about  a  million  of  slaves, 
in  their  various  fields  of  missionary  enterprise  and  pastoral  charge,  must,  to  a  great 
extent,  be  withheld  from  them,  and  immense  masses  of  this  unfortunate  class  of  our 
fellow-beings  be  left  to  perish,  as  the  result  of  Church  interference  with  the  civil 
affairs  and  relations  of  the  country. 

"  The  committee  are  compelled  to  believe,  that  the  mere  division  of  jurisdiction, 
as  authorized  by  the  General  Conference,  cannot  affect  either  the  moral  or  legal 
unity  of  the  great  American  family  of  Christians,  known  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  this  opinion  is  concurred  in  by  the  ablest  jurists  of  the  country.  We 
do  nothing  but  what  we  are  expressly  authorized  to  do  by  the  supreme,  or  rather 
highest  legislative  power  of  the  Church.  Would  the  Church  authorize  us  to  do 
wrong  1  The  division  relates  only  to  the  power  of  general  jurisdiction,  which  it  is 
not  proposed  to  destroy  or  even  reduce,  but  simply  to  invest  it  in  two  great  organs 
of  Church  action  and  control,  instead  of  one  as  at  present.  Such  a  change  in  the 
present  system  of  general  control,  cannot  disturb  the  moral  unity  of  the  Church  ;  for 


133 

it  is  strictly  an  agreed  modification  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  and  such 
agreement  and  consent  of  parties  must  preclude  the  idea  of  disunion.  In  view  of 
what  is  the  alleged  disunion  predicated  1  Is  the  purpose  and  act  of  becoming  a  sepa- 
rate organization  proof  of  disunion  or  want  of  proper  Church  unity  1  This  cannot 
be  urged  with  any  show  of  consistency,  inasmuch  as  '  the  several  annual  confer- 
ences in  General  Conference  assembled,'  that  is  to  say,  the  Church  through  only 
its  constitutional  organ  of  action,  on  all  subjects  involving  the  power  of  legislation, 
not  only  agreed  to  the  separate  organization  South,  but  made  full  constitutional  pro- 
vision for  carrying  it  into  effect.  It  is  a  separation  by  consent  of  parties,  under  the 
highest  authority  of  the  Church.  Is  it  intended  to  maintain,  that  the  xinity  of  the 
Church  depends  upon  the  modal  uniformity  of  the  jurisdiction  in  question  ]  If  this 
be  so,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  lost  its  unity  at  several  different  times. 
The  general  jurisdiction  of  the  Church  has  undergone  modifications,  at  several  dif- 
ferent times,  not  less  vital,  if  not  greatly  more  so,  than  the  one  now  proposed.  The 
high  conventional  powers,  of  which  we  are  so  often  reminded,  exercised  in  the 
organization  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  were  in  the  hands  of  a  conference 
of  unordained  lay  preachers,  under  the  sole  superintendence  of  an  appointee  of  Mr. 
Wesley.  This  was  the  first  General  Conference  type  and  original  form  of  the  juris- 
diction in  question.  The  jurisdictional  power  now  proposed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference, was  for  years  exercised  by  small  annual  conferences,  without  any  defined 
boundaries,  and  acting  separately  on  all  measures  proposed  for  their  determination. 
This  general  power  of  jurisdiction  next  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  bishops'  coun- 
cil, consisting  of  some  ten  persons,  where  it  remained  for  a  term  of  years.  Next, 
it  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  whole  itinerant  ministry,  in  full  connexion,  and  was 
exercised  by  them,  in  collective  action,  as  a  General  Conference  of  the  whole  body, 
met  together  at  the  same  time.  The  power  was  afterwards  vested  in  the  whole 
body  of  travelling  elders,  and  from  thence  finally  passed  into  the  hands  of  delegates, 
elected  by  the  annual  conferences,  to  meet  and  act  quadrennially  as  a  General  Con- 
ference, under  constitutional  restrictions  and  limitations.  Here  are  several  suc- 
cessive re-organizations  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  each  involving  a  much 
more  material  change  than  that  contemplated  in  the  General  Conference  plan,  by 
authority  of  which  this  Convention  is  about  to  erect  the  sixteen  annual  conferences 
in  the  slaveholding  States  into  a  separate  organization.  We  change  no  principle  in 
the  existing  theory  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction.  We  distinctly  recognise  the 
jurisdiction  of  a  delegated  General  Conference,  receiving  its  appointment  and  autho- 
rity from  the  whole  constituency  of  annual  conferences.  The  only  change  in  fact 
or  form,  will  be,  that  the  delegates  of  the  '  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,'  as  authorized  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  will  meet  in  one  General  Confer- 
ence assembly  of  their  own,  and  act  in  behalf  only  of  their  own  constituency,  and 
in  the  regulation  of  their  own  affairs,  consistently  with  the  good  faith  and  fealty  they 
owe  the  authority  and  laws  of  the  several  States  in  which  they  reside,  without  inter- 
fering with  affairs  beyond  their  jurisdiction,  or  suffering  foreign  interference  with 
their  own.  And  in  proceeding  to  do  this,  we  have  all  the  authority  it  was  in  the 
power  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  confer.  We  have,  also,  further,  ex- 
ample and  precedent  in  the  history  of  Methodism,  to  show  that  there  is  nothing 
irregular  or  inconsistent  with  Church  order  or  unity  in  the  separation  proposed. 
The  great  Wesleyan  Methodist  family,  everywhere  one  in  faith  and  practice, 
already  exists  under  several  distinct  and  unconnected  jurisdictions — there  is  no 
jurisdictional  or  connexional  union  between  them  ;  and  yet  it  has  never  been  pre- 
tended that  these  several  distinct  organizations  were  in  any  sense  inconsistent  with 
Church  unity.  If  the  Southern  conferences  proceed,  then,  to  the  establishment  of 
another  distinct  jurisdiction,  without  any  change  of  doctrine  or  discipline,  except  in 
matters  necessary  to  the  mere  economical  adjustment  of  the  system,  will  it  furnish 
any  reason  for  supposing  that  the  real  unity  of  the  Church  is  affected  by  what  all 
must  perceive  to  be  a  simple  division  of  jurisdiction  ?  When  the  conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States  are  separately  organized  as  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Con- 
nexion, they  will  only  be  what  the  General  Cenference  authorized  them  to  be.  Can 
this  be  irregular  or  subversive  of  Church  unity  ]  Acting  under  the  provisional  Plan 
of  Separation,  they  must,  although  a  separate  organization,  remain  in  essential  union 
with,  and  be  a  part  and  parcel  of,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  every  Scrip- 
tural and  moral  view  of  the  subject  ;  for  what  they  do  is  with  the  full  consent,  and 
has  the  official  sanction  of  the  Church  as  represented  in  the  General  Conference. 


134 

The  jurisdiction  we  arc  about  to  establish  and  assert  as  separate  and  independent,  is 
M_V  declined  and  ceded  by  the  General  Conference,  as  originally  its  own.  to 
the  Southern  Conferences,  for  the  specific  purpose  of  being  established  and  asserted 
in  the  manner  proposed.  All  idea  of  secession,  or  an  organization  alien  in  right  or 
relation  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  is  forever  precluded  by  the  terms  and 
conditions  of  the  authorized  Plan  of  Separation.  In  whatever  sense  we  are  separa- 
tists or  srinlcm,  we  are  such  by  authority — the  highest  authority  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  To  whatever  extent,  or  in  whatever  aspect  we  are  not  true  and 
faithful  ministers  and  members  of  that  Church,  such  delinquency  or  misfortune  is 
authenticated  by  her  act  and  approval,  and  she  declares  us  to  be  '  without  blame.' 
'  Ministers  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may,  as 
they  prefer,  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South.'  Bishops, 
elders,  and  deacons,  come  into  the  Southern  organization  at  their  own  election, 
under  permission  from  the  General  Conference,  not  only  accredited  as  ministers  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  with  credentials  limiting  the  exercise  of  their 
functions  within  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Is  it  conceivable  that  the  General 
Conference  would  so  act  and  hold  such  language  in  relation  to  an  ecclesiastical 
Connexion,  which  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  secession  from  the  Church  1  Do  not 
such  act  and  language,  and  the  whole  Plan  of  Separation,  rather  show  that,  as  the 
South  had  asked,  so  the  General  Conference  intended  to  authorize,  a  simple  division 
of  its  own  jurisdiction,  and  nothing  more  ! 

"  All  idea  of  secession,  or  schism,  or  loss  of  right  or  title,  as  ministers  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  being  precluded  by  the  specific  grant  or  authority  under 
which  we  act,  as  well  as  for  other  reasons  assigned,  many  considerations  might  be 
urged,  strongly  suggesting  the  fitness  and  propriety  of  the  separate  jurisdiction  con- 
templated, rendered  necessary,  as  we  have  seen,  upon  other  and  different  grounds  ; 
and  among  these  the  increased  value  of  the  representative  principle,  likely  to  be  se- 
cured by  the  change,  is  by  no  means  unworthy  of  notice.  At  the  first  representa- 
tive General  Conference,  thirty-three  years  ago,  each  delegate  represented  five 
travelling  ministers  and  about  two  thousand  members,  and  the  body  was  of  con- 
venient size  for  the  transaction  of  business.  At  the  late  General  Conference,  each 
delegate  was  the  representative  of  twenty-one  ministers  and  more  than  five  thou- 
sand members,  and  the  body  was  inconveniently  large  for  the  purpose  of  deliberation 
and  action.  Should  the  number  of  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  be  increased 
with  the  probable  growth  of  the  Church,  the  body  will  soon  become  xitterly  un- 
wieldy. Should  the  number  be  reduced,  while  the  ministry  and  membership  are 
multiplying,  the  representative  principle  would  become  to  be  little  more  than  nomi- 
nal, and,  in  the  same  proportion,  without  practical  value.  Besides  that  the  proposed 
re-organization  of  jurisdiction  will  remedy  this  evil,  at  least  to  a  great  extent,  it  will 
result  in  the  saving  of  much  time  and  expense,  and  useful  services  to  the  Church, 
connected  with  the  travel  and  protracted  sessions  of  the  General,  Conference,  not 
only  as  it  regards  the  delegates,  but  also  the  bench  of  bishops,  whose  general  over- 
sight might  become  much  more  minute  and  pastoral  in  its  character,  by  means  of 
such  an  arrangement.  When,  in  1808,  the  annual  conferences  resolved  upon 
changing  the  form  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  the  precise  reasons  we  have 
just  noticed  were  deemed  sufficient  ground  and  motive  for  the  change  introduced  ; 
and  as  we  are  seeking  only  a  similar  change  of  jurisdiction,  although  for  other  pur- 
poses as  well  as  this,  the  facts  to  which  we  ask  attention  are  certainly  worthy  of 
being  taken  into  the  estimate  of  advantages  likely  to  result  from  a  separate  and 
independent  organization,  especially  as  the  ministry  and  membership,  since  1808, 
have  increased  full  seven  hundred  per  centum,  and  should  they  continue  to  in- 
crease, in  something  like  the  same  ratio,  for  thirty  years  to  come,  under  the  present 
system  of  General  Conference  jurisdiction,  some  such  change  as  that  authorized  by 
the  late  General  Conference  must  be  resorted  to,  or  the  Church  resign  itself  to  the 
virtual  extinction  of  the  representative  principle,  as  an  important  element  of  govern- 
ment action. 

"  In  establishing  a  separate  jurisdiction  as  before  defined  and  explained,  so  far  from 
affecting  the  moral  oneness  and  integrity  of  the  great  Methodist  body  in  America, 
the  effect  will  be  to  secure  a  very  different  result.  In  resolving  upon  a  separate 
Connexion,  as  we  are  about  to  do,  the  one  great  and  controlling  motive  is  to  restore 
and  perpetuate  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church.  At  present  we  have  neither  ;  nor 
are  we  likely  to  have,  should  the  Southern  and  Northern  conferences  remain  in  con- 


135 

nexional  relation,  as  heretofore.  Inferring  effects  from  causes  known  to  be  in  exis- 
tence and  active  operation,  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  is  certain  to  continue, 
and  frequent  action  in  the  General  Conference  is  equally  certain,  and  the  result,  as 
heretofore,  will  be  excitement  and  discontent,  aggression  and  resistance.  Should 
the  South  retire  and  decline  all  further  conflict,  by  the  erection  of  the  Southern  con- 
ferences into  a  separate  jurisdiction,  as  authorized  by  the  General  Conference  plan, 
agitation  in  the  Church  cannot  be  brought  in  contact  with  the  South,  and  the  former 
irritation  and  evils  of  the  controversy  must,  to  a  great  extent,  cease,  or  at  any  rate 
so  lose  their  disturbing  force  as  to  become  comparatively  harmless.  Should  the 
Northern  Church  continue  to  discuss  and  agitate,  it  will  be  within  their  own  borders 
and  among  themselves,  and  the  evil  effects  upon  the  South  must,  to  say  the  least, 
be  greatly  lessened.  At  present,  the  consolidation  of  all  the  annual  conferences, 
under  the  jurisdictional  control  of  one  General  Conference,  always  giving  a  decided 
Northern  majority,  places  it  in  the  power  of  that  majority  to  manage  and  control  the 
interests  of  the  Church,  in  the  slaveholding  States,  as  they  see  proper,  and  we  have 
no  means  of  protection  against  the  evils  certain  to  be  inflicted  upon  us,  if  we  judge 
the  future  from  the  past.  The  whole  power  of  legislation  is  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence, and  as  that  body  is  now  constituted,  the  annual  conferences  of  the  South  are 
perfectly  powerless  in  the  resistance  of  wrong,  and  have  no  alternative  left  them  but 
unconditional  submission.  And  such  submission  to  the  views  and  action  of  the 
Northern  majority  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  it  is  now  demonstrated,  must  bring  dis- 
aster and  ruin  upon  Southern  Methodism,  by  rendering  the  Church  an.  object  of  dis- 
trust on  the  part  of  the  state.  In  this  way,  the  assumed  conservative  power  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  regard  to  the  civil  union  of  the  States,  is  to  a 
great  extent  destroyed,  and  we  are  compelled  to  believe  that  it  is  the  interest  and 
becomes  the  duty  of  the  Church  in  the  South  to  seek  to  exert  such  conservative  in- 
fluence in  some  other  form  ;  and  after  the  most  mature  deliberation  and  careful  ex- 
amination of  the  whole  subject,  we  know  of  nothing  so  likely  to  effect  the  object,  as 
the  jurisdictionai  separation  of  the  great  Church  parties,  unfortunately  involved  in  a 
religious  and  ecclesiastical  controversy  about  an  affair  of  state — a  question  of  civil 
policy — over  which  the  Church  has  no  control,  and  with  which,  it  is  believed,  she  has 
no  right  to  interfere.  Among  the  nearly  five  hundred  thousand  ministers  and  members 
of  the  conferences  represented  in  this  convention,  we  do  not  know  one  not  deeply  and 
intensely  interested  in  the  safety  and  perpetuity  of  the  National  Union,  nor  can  we  for 
a  moment  hesitate  to  pledge  them  all  against  any  course  of  action  or  policy,  not  cal- 
culated, in  their  judgment,  to  render  that  union  as  immortal  as  the  hopes  of  patriotism 
would  have  it  to  be  ! 

"  Before  closing  the  summary  view  of  the  whole  subject  taken  in  this  report,  we 
cannot  refrain  from  a  brief  notice  of  the  relations  and  interests  of  Southern  border 
conferences.  These,  it  must  be  obvious,  are  materially  different  from  those  of  the 
more  Southern  conferences.  They  do  not,  for  the  present,  feel  the  pressure  of  the 
strong  necessity  impelling  the  South  proper  to  immediate  separation.  They  are, 
however,  involved  with  regard  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  controversy,  and  com- 
mitted to  well-defined  principles,  in  the  same  way.  and  to  the  same  extent,  with  the 
most  Southern  conferences.  They  have  with  almost  perfect  unanimity,  by  public 
official  acts,  protested  against  the  entire  action  of  the  late  General  Conference  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  and  in  reference  to  the  relative  rights  and  powers  of  episcopacy 
and  the  General  Conference,  as  not  only  unconstitutional,  but  revolutionary,  and, 
therefore,  dangerous  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church.  They  have  solemnly  de- 
clared, by  approving  and  endorsing  the  Declaration,  the  Protest,  and  Address  of  the 
Southern  delegates,  that  the  objects  of  their  ministry  cannot  be  accomplished,  under 
the  existing  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference,  without  reparation  for  past  injury 
and  security  against  future  aggression  ;  and  unless  the  border  conferences  have  good 
and  substantial  reasons  to  believe  such  reparation  and  security  not  only  probable,  but 
so  certain  as  to  remove  reasonable  doubt,  they  have,  so  far  as  principle  and  pledge 
are  concerned,  the  same  motive  for  action  with  the  conferences  South  of  them. 
Against  the  principles  thus  avowed  by  every  one  of  the  conferences  in  question,  the 
anti-slavery  and  abolition  of  the  North  have,  through  official  Church  organs,  declared 
the  most  open  and  undisguised  hostility,  and  these  conferences  are  reduced  to  the 
necessity  of  deciding  upon  adherence  to  the  principles  they  have  officially  avowed,  or 
of  a  resort  to  expediency  to  adjust  difficulties  in  some  unknown  form,  which  they 
have  said  could  only  be  adjusted  by  substantial  reparation  for  past  injury,  and  good 


136 

and  sufficient  warrant  against  future  aggression.  The  question  is  certainly  one  of 
no  common  interest.  Should  any  of  the  border  conferences,  or  societies  South,  af- 
filiate with  the  North,  the  effect,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  will  be  to  transfer  the  seat  of 
war  to  the  remoter  South — to  these  border  districts  ;  and  what,  we  ask,  will  be  the 
security  of  these  districts  against  the  moral  ravages  of  such  a  war  !  What  protection 
:  ity  will  the  Discipline,  or  the  conservatism  of  the  middle  conferences  afford  ? 
Of  what  avail  were  these  at  the  last  General  Conference,  and  has  either  more  influ- 
ence now  than  then  1  The  controversy  of  a  large  and  rapidly-increasing  portion  of 
the  North,  is  not  so  much  with  the  South  as  with  the  Discipline,  because  it  tolerates 
slavery  in  any  form  whatever ;  and  should  the  Southern  conferences  remain  under 
the  present  common  jurisdiction,  or  any  slaveholding  portions  of  the  South  unite  in 
the  Northern  Connexion  in  the  event  of  division,  it  requires  very  little  discernment 
to  see  that  this  controversy  will  never  cease  until  every  slaveholder  or  every  aboli- 
tionist is  out  of  the  Connexion.  Besides,  the  border  conferences  have  a  great  and 
most  delicate  interest  at  stake,  in  view  of  their  territorial,  and  civil,  and  political  re- 
lations, which  it  certainly  behooves  them  to  weigh  well  and  examine  with  care  in 
coming  to  the  final  conclusion,  which  is  to  identify  them  with  the  North  or  the  South. 
Border  districts  going  with  the  North,  after  and  notwithstanding  the  action  of  the 
border  conferences,  must,  in  the  nature  of  things,  as  found  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  affiliate,  to  a  great  extent,  with  the  entire  aggregate  of  Northern  anti-slavery 
and  abolition,  as  now  embarked  against  the  interests  of  the  South ;  as  also  with  all 
the  recent  official  violations  of  right,  of  law,  and  Discipline,  against  which  the  South 
is  now  contending.  In  doing  this,  they  must  of  necessity,  if  we  have  reasoned  cor- 
rectly, elect,  and  contribute  their  influence,  to  retain  in  the  Connexion  of  their  choice 
all  the  principles  and  elements  of  strife  and  discord  which  have  so  long  and  fearfully 
convulsed  the  Church.  Will  this  be  the  election  of  Southern  border  sections  and 
districts,  or  will  they  remain  where,  by  location,  civil  and  political  ties  and  relations, 
and  their  own  avowed  principles,  they  properly  belong — firmly  planted  upon  the  long 
and  well-tried  platform  of  the  Discipline  of  our  common  choice,  and  from  which  the 
Methodism  of  the  South  has  never  manifested  any  disposition  to  swerve  1  To  the 
Discipline  the  South  has  always  been  loyal.  By  it  she  has  abided  in  every  trial. 
Jealously  has  she  cherished  and  guarded  that  "  form  of  sound  words" — the  faith,  the 
ritual,  and  the  government  of  the  Church.  It  was  Southern  defence  against  Northern 
invasion  of  the  Discipline,  which  brought  on  the  present  struggle  ;  and  upon  the  Dis- 
cipline, the  whole  Discipline,  the  South  proposes  to  organize,  under  authority  of  the 
General  Conference,  a  separate  Connexion  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The 
result,  from  first  to  last,  has  been  consented  to  on  the  part  of  the  South  with  the 
greatest  reluctance. 

"  After  the  struggle  came  on,  at  the  late  General  Conference,  the  Southern  delegates, 
as  they  had  often  done  before,  manifested  the  most  earnest  desire,  and  did  all  in  their 
power,  to  maintain  jurisdictional  union  with  the  North,  without  sacrificing  the  interests 
of  the  South :  when  this  was  found  impracticable,  a  connexional  union  was  pro- 
posed, and  the  rejection  of  this,  by  the  North,  led  to  the  projection  and  adoption  of 
the  present  General  Conference  Plan  of  Separation.  Every  overture  of  compromise, 
every  plan  of  reconciliation  and  adjustment,  regarded  as  at  all  eligible,  or  likely  to 
succeed,  was  offered  by  the  South  and  rejected  by  the  North.  All  subsequent  at- 
tempts at  compromise,  have  failed  in  like  manner,  and  the  probability  of  any  such 
adjustment,  if  not  extinct,  is  lessening  every  day,  and  the  annual  conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States  are  thus  left  to  take  their  position  upon  the  ground  assigned 
them  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  as  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connexion, 
ready  and  most  willing  to  treat  with  the  Northern  division  of  the  Church,  at  any- 
time, in  view  of  adjusting  the  difficulties  of  this  controversy,  upon  terms  and  princi- 
ples which  may  be  safe  and  satisfactory  to  both. 

"  Such  we  regard  as  the  true  position  of  the  annual  conferences  represented  in  this 
convention.  Therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  principles  and  interests  involved,  appealing 
to  the  Almighty  Searcher  of  hearts,  for  the  sincerity  of  our  motives,  and  humbly  in- 
xoking  the  Divine  blessing  upon  our  action, 

"  Be  it  resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  the  slaveholding  States,  in  General  Convention  assembled, 
That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and  necessary,  to  erect  the  annual  conferences,  represented 
in  this  convention,  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connexion,  separate  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at  present 


139 

ing  of  the  convention  at  Louisville,  Kentucky.  Immediately  after  the  passing  of  the 
memorable  resolution  in  my  case  in  the  late  General  Conference,  I  left  the  city  of 
New- York,  and  spent  the  next  day,  which  was  the  Sabbath,  at  Newark,  New- Jersey, 
to  fulfil  an  engagement  previously  made  ;  after  which  I  returned  to  the  bosom  of  my 
family  in  Georgia.  From  Newark  I  addressed  a  letter  to  Bishop  Soule,  assigning 
the  reasons  for  my  departure,  and  stating  in  substance  to  the  following  effect,  viz  : 
That  I  did  not  know  whether  the  bishops  would  feel  authorized,  in  view  of  the  recent 
action  of  the  General  Conference,  to  assign  me  a  place  among  them  for  the  next  four 
years,  unless  that  body  should  condescend  to  explain  its  action  more  definitely  ;  but 
that  if  the  bishops  should  see  proper  to  assign  me  my  share  in  the  episcopal  visita- 
tions, I  should  be  glad  that  they  would  let  my  work  commence  as  late  in  the  season 
as  convenient,  inasmuch  as  I  had  been  absent  from  my  family  most  of  the  time  for 
the  last  twelve  months  ;  but  that  if  they  did  not  feel  authorized,  in  view  of  the  action 
of  the  General  Conference,  to  give  me  work,  I  should  not  feel  hurt  with  them.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  there  was  subsequently  introduced  into  the  Conference  a  reso- 
lution intended  to  explain  the  meaning  of  the  former  one  as  being  simply  advisory ; 
this  was  promptly  laid  on  the  table,  which  left  no  doubt  of  the  correctness  of  the 
opinion  I  had  previously  formed,  that  the  General  Conference  designed  the  action  as 
mandatory.  I  understand  that  the  Southern  delegates  afterwards  notified  the  bishops 
in  due  form,  that  if  they  should  give  me  my  portion  of  the  episcopal  work,  I  should 
attend  to  it.  The  plan  of  episcopal  visitation,  however,  was  drawn  up  and  subse- 
quently published  without  my  name,  as  is  well  known.  I  have  heard  it  rumoured, 
indeed,  that  this  plan  was  so  arranged  that  I  could  be  taken  into  it  at  any  time  when 
I  should  signify  a  wish  to  be  so  introduced ;  and  some  anonymous  correspondents 
of  the  Western  and  Southern  Christian  Advocates  have  expressed  themselves  in  a 
manner  which  indicated  some  surprise,  that  I  had  not  availed  myself  of  this  kind 
provision  of  the  episcopal  board.  Now,  in  reply  to  all  this  I  have  only  to  say,  that 
I  presume  those  gentlemen  are  mistaken  entirely  as  to  the  practicability  of  any  such 
arrangement ;  for  if  the  bishops  had  contemplated  the  possibility  of  any  such  change 
in  their  plan,  it  is  but  fair  to  infer  that  either  they  would  have  appended  to  their  pub- 
lished arrangement  some  note  to  that  effect,  or  else  that  they  would  have  informed 
me  of  it  by  letter ;  and  forasmuch  as  they  have  done  neither,  I  presume  that  the 
aforementioned  rumour  is  altogether  without  foundation.  However,  I  may  be  mista- 
ken in  this  judgment,  and  I  know  nothing  of  the  plans  of  the  bishops,  other  than  what 
is  published,  not  having  received  a  line  from  one  of  them  since  the  General  Confer- 
ence, save  the  accompanying  letter  from  Bishop  Soule.  In  view  of  all  these  facts, 
I  came  deliberately  to  the  conclusion  that  the  bishops  thought  it  most  prudent,  under 
the  circumstances,  not  to  invite  me  to  perform  any  official  action  ;  and  as  I  wished  to 
be  the  cause  of  no  unpleasant  feeling  to  the  bishops  or  preachers,  I  determined  not 
to  visit  any  of  the  annual  conferences  at  their  respective  sessions.  At  the  urgent 
solicitation,  however,  of  many  of  the  preachers  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  I  so  far 
changed  my  determination  as  to  make  an  effort  to  reach  that  conference  about  the 
last  day  or  two  of  the  session  ;  but  a  very  unexpected  detention  on  the  road  prevented 
the  accomplishment  of  my  purpose.  Further  reflection  brought  me  back  fo  my  origi- 
nal purpose  ;  and  I  abstained  from  visiting  Holston  and  Missouri.  On  the  important 
questions  which  now  agitate  us,  I  wished  the  conferences  to  act  in  view  of  the  great 
facts  and  principles  involved,  apart  from  any  influence  which  my  personal  presence 
among  them  might  produce.  I  had  laid  out  my  plan  of  work  for  the  winter  :  I  de- 
signed to  visit  different  portions  of  the  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States,  and  pub- 
lish among  them,  as  I  was  able,  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ.  The  foregoing 
communication  from  Bishop  Soule  furnishes  me  a  sufficient  reason  to  change  my 
arrangements,  and  to  attend,  in  connexion  with  him,  the  conferences  allotted  to  him 
during  the  whiter,  in  the  distribution  of  episcopal  labour. 

"  And  now  permit  me,  in  conclusion,  to  tender  to  my  brethren,  both  of  the  South 
and  South- West,  my  most  cordial  and  grateful  acknowledgments  for  their  kind  ex- 
pressions of  sympathy  for  me,  in  the  storm  through  which  I  have  been  passing,  and 
to  invoke  their  most  fervent  and  continued  prayers  for  me  and  mine,  and  especially 
for  the  Church  of  God.  I  thank  them  for  the  many  affectionate  invitations  to  attend 
their  conferences,  and  most  joyfully  would  I  have  been  with  them  but  for  the  reasons 
indicated  above.  May  God  abundantly  bless  us,  and  guide  us  into  the  way  of  truth 
and  peace.  JAMES  O.  ANDREW." 


140 

The  action  of  the  conferences  of  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Holston,  and  Tennessee,  in 
1845,  subsequent  to  the  Louisville  Convention,  from  which  an  extract  was  read,  is 
thus  set  forth.— Page  108. 

••  "Wo  now  come  to  notice  the  movements  of  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
and  which  were  represented  in  the  Louisville  Convention.  The  first  in  order  of  these 
is  Kentucky.  It  met  September  10,  1845,  in  Frankfort,  Kentucky,  and  was  attended 
by  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew.  On  the  first  day  of  the  session  the  following  pre- 
amble and  resolutions  were  offered  to  the  conference,  and  adopted  : — 

•••Whereas,  the  long-continued  agitation  and  excitement  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
and  abolition  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  especially  such  agitation  and 
excitement  in  the  last  General  Conference,  in  connexion  with  the  civil  and  domestic 
relations  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  the  owner  of  slave  property,  by  inheritance  and  mar- 
riage, assumed  such  form,  in  the  action  had  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  as  to  com- 
pel the  Southern  and  South- Western  delegates  in  that  body  to  believe,  and  formally 
and  solemnly  to  declare,  that  a  state  of  things  must  result  therefrom  which  would 
render  impracticable  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  objects  and  purposes  of 
the  Christian  ministry  and  Church  organization  in  the  annual  conferences  within 
the  limits  of  the  slaveholding  States, — upon  the  basis  of  which  declaration  the 
General  Conference  adopted  a  provisional  Plan  of  Separation,  in  view  of  which 
said  conferences  might,  if  they  found  it  necessary,  form  themselves  into  a  separate 
General  Conference  jurisdiction ;  and  whereas,  said  conferences,  acting  first  in  their 
separate  conference  capacity,  as  distinct  ecclesiastical  bodies,  and  then  collectively, 
by  their  duly-appointed  delegates  and  representatives,  in  general  convention  as- 
sembled, have  found  and  declared  such  separation  necessary,  and  have  further  de- 
clared a  final  dissolution,  in  fact  and  form,  of  the  jurisdictional  connexion  hitherto 
existing  between  them  and  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  as  heretofore  constituted,  and  have  organized  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  upon  the  unaltered  basis  of  the  doctrines  and  Discipline  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  before  its  separation,  as  authorized  by  the 
General  Conference  ;  and  whereas,  said  Plan  of  Separation,  as  adopted  by  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  and  carried  out  by  the  late  convention  of  Southern  delegates  in  the 
city  of  Louisville,  Kentucky,  and  also  recognised  by  the  entire  episcopacy  as  author- 
itative and  of  binding  obligation  in  the  whole  range  of  then-  administration,  provides 
that  conferences  bordering  on  the  line  of  division  between  the  two  connexions — 
North  and  South — shall  determine,  by  vote  of  a  majority  of  their  members  respect- 
ively, to  which  jurisdiction  they  will  adhere  ;  therefore,  in  view  of  all  the  premises, 
as  one  of  the  border  conferences,  and  subject  to  the  above-named  rule, — 

"  '  Rcsohcd  by  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
That  in  conforming  to  the  General  Conference  Plan  of  Separation,  it  is  necessary 
that  this  conference  decide  by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  its  members  to  which  Connexion 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  it  will  adhere,  and  that  we  now  proceed  to  make 
such  decision. 

"  'Resolved,  That  any  member  or  members  of  this  conference  declining  to  adhere 
to  that  Connexion  to  which  the  majority  shall  by  regular,  official  vote  decide  to  ad- 
here, shall  be  regarded  as  entitled,  agreeably  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  to  hold  their 
relation  to  the  other  ecclesiastical  Connexion — North  or  South,  as  the  case  may  be — 
without  blame  or  prejudice  of  any  kind,  unless  there  be  grave  objections  to  the  moral 
character  of  such  member  or  members  before  the  date  of  such  formal  adherence. 

"  '  Resolved,  That  agreeably  to  the  provisions  of  the  General  Conference  Plan  of 
Separation,  and  the  decisions  of  the  episcopacy  with  regard  to  it,  any  person  or  per- 
sons, from  and  after  the  act  of  non-concurrence  with  the  majority,  as  above,  cannot 
be  entitled  to  hold  membership,  or  claim  any  of  the  rights  or  privileges  of  member- 
ship, in  this  conference. 

"  '  Resolved,  That,  as  a  conference,  claiming  all  the  rights,  powers,  and  privileges 
of  an  annual  conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  adhere  to  the  Metho- 
dist Plpiscopal  Church,  South,  and  that  all  our  proceedings,  records,  and  official 
acts,  hereafter,  be  in  the  name  and  style  of  the  Kentucky  Annual  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  '  FBANKFORT,  KENTUCKY,  September  10,  1845.' 


141 

"  The  vote  on  the  4th — the  adhering  resolution — being  taken  by  ayes  and  noes, 
stood,  ayes  77,  noes  6.  Four  of  the  six  who  voted  in  the  negative  afterwards  ad- 
hered personally  to  the  South  ;  but  three  persons  who  did  not  vote  on  conference 
adherence — one  being  absent,  and  two  being  probationers — personally  adhered  to  the 
North.  Here  the  result  was  very  different  from  the  predictions  of  one  party  and 
the  apprehensions  of  the  other.  The  unanimity  of  sentiment  in  the  conference,  and 
the  delightful  harmony  which  prevailed,  wielded  a  mighty  influence  in  promoting 
harmony  in  the  societies  and  throughout  the  conference.  On  a  line  of  border  of 
several  hundreds  of  miles,  there  was  found  but  one  small  society  adhering  to  the 
North,  while  in  nearly  all  the  others  not  a  murmur  or  complaint  was  heard.  A  paper 
in  Kentucky,  which  had  employed  all  its  influence  previously  against  the  South, 
from  this  time  acquiesced,  and  faithfully  co-operated  with  the  conference.  True,  the 
conference  had  lost  two  effective  men — two  young  men  who  might  in  time  have  be- 
come useful,  and  a  venerable  superannuate,  for  whose  support  during  life  the  con- 
ference gave  a  generous  pledge ;  but  they  had  gained  Jive  (and  afterwards  gained 
three)  from  the  North,  all  men  of  experience,  weight,  and  talents. 

"  The  second  border  conference  to  act  on  the  question  of  adherence  was  Missouri. 
Here  it  was  claimed  that  the  Northern  party  would  have  a  conference  at  any  rate  ; 
for  if  they  could  not  secure  a  majority,  they  would  organize  with  a  minority,  transact 
the  regular  business  of  the  Missouri  Conference,  and  draw  the  dividend  from  the 
Book  Concern.  The  better  to  accomplish  their  purposes,  Bishop  Morris  was  written 
to  and  invited  to  attend  the  conference,  with  a  desire  that  he  would  take  charge  of 
the  Northern  party.  To  this  invitation  he  gave  the  following  noble  response  : — 

"Bishop  Morris's  Letter. 

"  '  BURLINGTON,  IOWA,  September  8,  1845. 

" '  Rev.  Wilson  S.  McMurry — Dear  Brother, — Your  letter  of  the  first  instant  is  now 
before  me.  The  resolutions  to  which  you  refer  did  pass  in  the  meeting  of  the  bishops 
at  New- York,  in  July,  unanimously.  We  all  believe  they  are  in  accordance  with  the 
Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference.  Whether  that  Plan  was 
wise  or  foolish,  constitutional  or  unconstitutional,  did  not  become  us  to  say,  it  being 
our  duty,  as  bishops,  to  know  what  the  General  Conference  ordered  to  be  done  in  a 
certain  contingency  which  has  actually  transpired,  and  to  carry  it  out  in  good  faith. 
It  is,  perhaps,  unfortunate  that  the  resolutions  were  not  immediately  published,  but 
it  was  not  thought  necessary  by  a  majority  at  the  time  they  passed.  Still,  our  admin- 
istration will  be  conformed  to  them.  Bishop  Soule's  notice  was  doubtless  founded 
upon  them. 

"  '  As  I  am  the  responsible  man  at  Indiana  Conference,  October  8,  it  will  not  be  in 
my  power  to  attend  Missouri  Conference ;  nor  do  I  think  it  important  to  do  so. 
Were  I  there,  I  could  not,  with  my  views  of  propriety  and  responsibility,  encourage 
subdivision.  If  a  majority  of  the  Missouri  Conference  resolve  to  come  under  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  that  would  destroy  the  identity  of  the  Missouri 
Conference  as  an  intregal  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  As  to  having  two 
Missouri  Conferences,  each  claiming  to  be  the  true  one,  and  demanding  the  dividends 
of  the  Book  Concern,  and  claiming  the  Church  property,  that  is  the  very  thing  that 
the  General  Conference  designed  to  prevent,  by  adopting  the  amicable  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion. It  is  true  that  the  minority  preachers  have  a  right,  according  to  the  general 
rule  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  to  be  recognised  still  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  but  in  order  to  that  they  must  go  to  some  adjoining  conference  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  border  charges  may  also,  by  a  majority  of  votes, 
decide  which  organization  they  will  adhere  to,  and  if  reported  in  regular  order  to  the 
conference  from  which  they  wish  to  be  supplied,  or  to  the  bishops  presiding,  they  will 
be  attended  to,  on. either  side  of  the  line  of  separation.  But  if  any  brethren  suppose 
the  bishops  will  send  preachers  from  the  North  to  interior  charges,  South,  or  to 
minorities  of  border  charges,  to  produce  disruption  ;  or  that  they  will  encourage 
minority  preachers  on  either  side  of  the  line  to  organize  opposition  lines,  by  establish- 
ing one  conference  in  the  bounds  of  another,  they  are  mis-led.  That  would  be  de- 
parting from  the  plain  letter  of  the  rule  prescribed  by  the  General  Conference,  in  the 
premises.  Editors  may  teach  such  nullification  and  answer  for  it,  if  they  will ;  but  the 
bishops  all  understand  their  duty  better  than  to  endorse  such  principles.  I  acknowledge 
that,  under  the  practical  operation  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  some  hard  cases  may 


142 

i>ut  the  bishops  do  not  make,  and  have  not  the  power  to  relieve  them.     It  is 

the  fault  of  the  rule,  and  not  of  the  executive  administration  of  it.     In  the  meantime, 

-  much  more  bad  feeling  indulged  in  respecting  the  separation,  than  there  is 

•y  for.     If  the  Plan  of  Separation  had  been  carried  out  in  good  faith  and 

Christian  feeling  on  both  sides,  it  would  scarcely  have  been  felt  any  more  than  the 

division  of  an  annual  conference.     R  need  not  destroy  confidence  or  embarrass  the 

work,  if  the  business  be  managed  in  the  spirit  of  Christ.     I  trust  the  time  is  not  very 

f:ir  distant  when  brethren,  North  and  Soiith,  will  cease  their  hostilities,  and  betake 

themselves  to  their  prayers  and  other  appropriate  duties  in  earnest.     Then,  and  not 

till  then,  may  we  expect  the  Lord  to  bless  us  as  in  former  days. 

"  '  I  am,  dear  brother,  Yours  respectfully  and  affectionately, 

"  '  THOMAS  A.  MORRIS.' 

"  Bishop  Soule  presided  over  the  conference ;  and  when  the  question  of  adherence 
was  taken  up,  the  letter  of  Bishop  Morris  was  read,  and,  as  may  be  supposed,  not 
without  effect. 

"  The  same  resolutions  substantially  adopted  by  Kentucky  Conference,  were 
introduced  and  adopted  by  this  conference,  only  14  voting  in  the  negative,  including 
absentees." 

The  passages  in  relation  to  the  Holston  Conference  were  read  by  Mr.  Lord,  and 
are  given  in  their  proper  place.  The  conclusion  of  the  extracts  is  as  follows  : — 

"  The  Tennessee  Conference,  which  met  October  22,  1845,  though  not  a  border 
conference,  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions,  by  a  unanimous  vote  : — 

"  '  WHEREAS,  the  agitation  of  the  questions  of  slavery  and  abolition  for  the  last 
several  years,  has  created  great  excitement  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  de- 
structive of  her  peace  and  harmony ;  .and  whereas,  the  General  Conference  of  1844 
did,  by  extra-judicial  act,  virtually  suspend  the  Rev.  James  O.  Andrew,  one  of  the 
bishops  of  said  Church,  for  an  act  in  which  he  was  fully  sustained  by  the  law  and 
constitution  of  the  Church,  and  did  thereby  render  a  continuance  of  the  conferences 
in  the  slaveholding  States  under  the  jurisdiction  of  said  General  Conference,  incon- 
sistent with  the  interests  of  our  holy  religion,  and  the  great  purposes  of  the  Christian 
ministry  ;  and  whereas,  the  said  General  Conference  adopted  a  plan  for  a  constitu- 
tional and  peaceable  division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  two  separate 
and  distinct  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions ;  and  whereas,  the  conferences  in  the  slave- 
holding  States  did  adjudge  such  separation  imperiously  necessary,  and  did  appoint 
delegates  from  their  respective  bodies  to  meet  in  General  Convention  at  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  1845  ;  and  whereas,  said  convention  did  proceed 
to  declare  the  separation  right,  expedient,  and  necessary  for  the  prosperity  of  the 
Southern  Church,  and  did  proceed,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation  provided  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  to  adopt  measures  for  the  organization  of  a  separate 
and  distinct  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  known  by  the  name  and  under  the  style  of 
"  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,"  based  on  the  doctrines  and  economy  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  set  forth  in  the  Discipline  of  said  Church  ; 
therefore, 

"'1.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  the  Plan  of  Separation  as  reported  by  the  Commit- 
tee of  Nine,  and  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

"  '2.  That  we  most  cordially  approve  of  the  entire  proceedings  of  the  Southern 
delegates  in  the  convention  at  Louisville,  in  May,  1845,  and  that  we  solemnly  declare 
our  adherence  to  the  said  Southern  organization. 

"  '  3.  That  our  journals  and  all  our  official  records  be  kept  in  the  name  and  under 
the  style  of  the  Tennessee  Annual  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South. 

"  '  4.  That  we  will,  at  this  session,  elect  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  be  held  at  Petersburg,  Va.,  on  the  first 
day  of  May,  1846,  according  to  the  ratio  of  representation  (one  for  every  fourteen 
members  of  the  conference)  fixed  at  the  Louisville  convention. 

"  '  5.  That  we,  as  ever,  heartily  believe  in  the  doctrines  and  approve  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  set  forth  in  our  articles  of  faith,  and 


143 

taught  in  the  Discipline,  and  that  we  will  resist  any  and  every  attempt  to  change  any 
cardinal  features  of  Methodism,  as  handed  down  to  us  by  "our  fathers." 

"  '  6.  That  we  highly  approve  of  the  course  pursued  by  Bishops  Soule  and  An- 
drew in  their  administration,  since  the  occurrence  of  the  difficulties  in  the  General 
Conference  of  1844,  and  that  we  sympathize  with  them  in  the  unjust  and  ungenerous 
persecution  which  has  been  so  bitterly  carried  on  against  them  in  certain  portions  of 
the  North. 

"  '  7.  That  we  properly  appreciate  the  conservative  course  pursued  by  the  bench 
of  bishops,  pending  the  difficulties  which  for  the  last  eighteen  months  have  so  agi- 
tated the  Church,  and  specially  do  we  commend  their  purpose  of  carrying  out,  so  far 
as  their  administration  is  concerned,  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General 
Conference  of  1844.  ROBERT  PAINE, 

J.  B.  McFERRIN.'  " 

The  communication  from  H.  B.  Bascom,  and  others,  commissioners,  to  N.  Bangs, 
and  others,  commissioners,  dated  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  August  25,  1846,  and  the  reply 
thereto,  dated  New- York,  October  14th,  1846 — page  117,  second  of  Proofs — to 
which  Mr.  Lord  referred,  are  as  follows : — 

"  The  General  Conference  of  1844,  in  the  provisional  Plan  of  a  division  of  the 
Church  property  with  the  South,  appointed  three  commissioners  in  behalf  of  the 
Northern  branch  of  the  Church  to  act  co-operatively  with  like  commissioners  to  be 
appointed  on  the  part  of  the  South.  Our  Southern  General  Conference  of  May  last 
appointed  commissioners  accordingly,  who  met  in  Cincinnati  in  August  last,  and  ad- 
dressed the  following  communication  to  the  commissioners  of  the  North — personally 
and  privately.  Rev.  J.  B.  Finley,  one  of  the  Northern  commissioners,  has  responded 
through  the  Western  Advocate,  and  we  now  deem  it  proper  to  let  our  readers  see 
the  communication  of  our  commissioners,  and  Mr.  Finley's  reply  in  connexion.  The 
argument  of  commissioner  Finley  is  sufficiently  original.  In  substance  it  is,  1.  The 
conferences  voted  against  the  change.  2.  The  commissioners  had  no  means  of  know- 
ing how  the  conferences  voted.  3.  Nobody  had  any  authority  to  give  them  the  in- 
formation. 4.  The  South  had  forfeited  all  claim  to  the  benefits  of  such  vote  if  it 
was  given. 

"  '  The  undersigned,  commissioners  appointed  by  the  late  General  Conference  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  accordance  with  the  Plan  of  Separation 
adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1844,  to 
act  in  concert  with  the  commissioners  of  said  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  specially 
appointed  for  the  purpose,  in  estimating  the  amount  of  property  and  funds  due  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation  aforesaid, 
and  to  adjust  and  settle  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  division  of  the  Church  property 
and  funds  as  agreed  upon  and  provided  for  in  said  Plan,  with  full  powers  at  the  same 
time  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangement,  with  regard  to  said  division  of  pro- 
perty, would  respectfully  give  notice  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Bangs,  Dr.  Peck,  and  Rev. 
James  B.  Finley,  commissioners,  and  the  Rev.  George  Lane  and  C.  B.  Tippett,  book 
agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  they  are  prepared  to  act  in  concert 
with  them,  as  the  Plan  of  Separation  contemplates  and  requests,  in  an  amicable  at- 
tempt, to  settle  and  adjust  all  the  matters  and  interests  to  which  the  appointment  of 
each  Board  of  Commissioners  relates — that  is  to  say,  all  questions  involving  property 
and  funds  which  may  be  pending  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  And  as  necessary  to  such  a  result,  in  the 
judgment  of  the  commissioners,  South,  they  would  respectfully  suggest  and  urge  the 
propriety  and  necessity  of  a  joint  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners,  North  and 
South,  at  a  period  as  early  as  practicable,  that  the  intention  of  the  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion, in  this  respect,  may  not  be  defeated  by  unnecessary  delay.  It  has  been  the 
aim  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  to  see 
that  all  the  terms  and  stipulations  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  be  strictly  complied  with 
on  their  part,  and  provision  has  been  accordingly  made  that  the  Rev.  John  Early, 
book  agent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  its  appointee  to  receive 
the  property  and  funds  falling  due  to  the  South,  be  duly  and  properly  clothed  with 
the  legal  and  corporate  powers  required  by  the  Plan  of  Separation.  And  the  under- 
signed commissioners  are  not  able  to  perceive  any  valid  reason  or  reasons  why  the 


144 

negotiation  respecting  the  division  of  property  should  not  proceed  in  the  hands  of  the 
loint  commissioners  without  delay,  and  hence  request  the  joint  meeting  of  the  com- 
missioners of  the  bodies  they  represent  to  judge  and  determine  whether  the  annual 
'•onferences  have  authorized  the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  and  as  no  such 
i  can  be  had  until  given  by  them,  it  seems  important  that  such  decision  should 
>i  by  them  as  soon  as  practicable,  and  we  know  of  no  mode  of  conclusive  ac- 
tion in  the  case,  except  by  a  joint  meeting  of  the  commissioners.  The  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration provides  for  no  intermediate  action  between  that  of  the  annual  conferences,  and 
that  to  be  had  by  the  commissioners,  and  unless  the  commissioners  North  arc  in  pos- 
session of  information,  clear  and  satisfactory,  that  the  action  of  the  annual  confer- 
ences, in  the  aggregate  vote  given  by  them,  is  adverse  to  the  recommendation  of  the 
General  Conference,  it  is  obviously  made  their  duty,  by  the  Plan  of  Separation,  to 
meet  and  decide  the  question.  From  all  the  information  in  our  possession,  we  see 
no  reason  why  we  should  not  act  upon  the  assumption,  that  the  proposed  change  in 
the  restrictive  rule  has  been  authorized.  The  language  of  the  Discipline  is,  "  Upon 
the  concurrent  recommendation  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  several 
annual  conferences,  who  shall  be  present  and  vote  upon  such  recommendations." 
The  language  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  is,  "Whenever  the  annual  conferences,  by 
a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their  members  voting  on  the  third  resolution."  It  fol- 
lows hence,  that  both  by  the  language  of  the  Discipline  and  that  of  the  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration, the  question  was  to  be  settled  by  the  aggregate  vote  of  those  members  of  the 
several  annual  conferences,  who  were  present  in  their  annual  sessions,  when  the 
question  came  up,  and  actually  voted  upon  it.  If  any  refused  or  failed  to  vote,  with 
such  we  have  nothing  to  do — they  cannot  be  regarded  as  either  for  or  against  the 
measure.  They  declined  the  right  of  suffrage  by  refusing  to  act,  and  the  determina- 
tion of  the  question  rests  with  those  who  were  present  and  voted  in  accordance  with 
the  law.  In  the  instance  of  several  annual  conferences,  the  vote  was  contingent,  and 
future  events,  now  to  be  judged  of  by  the  commissioners,  were  to  give  an  affirmative. 
or  negative  character  to  their  votes.  In  the  instance  of  two  of  these  at  least  (and 
we  believe  it  to  be  equally  true  of  four)  it  is  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof,  that, 
by  their  own  official  showing,  their  votes  must,  beyond  all  doubt,  be  counted  in  the 
affirmative,  or  not  at  all ;  and  in  either  case,  and  indeed  without  reference  to  either, 
taking  no  account  of  the  conferences  which  refused  to  vote,  it  is  believed  the  consti- 
tutional majority  of  all  the  votes  given  was  in  favour  of  the  change,  and  it  will,  it 
seems  to  us,  devolve  upon  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to 
make  the  contrary  appear  before  they  can  in  good  faith  refuse  to  carry  into  effect  the 
Plan  of  Separation.  To  settle  this  question  fairly  and  honourably,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  facts  in  the  case,  it  is  believed  that  a  meeting  of  the  commissioners  is  indis- 
pensable. To  this  we  may  add,  that  the  most  weighty  considerations,  both  of  justice 
and  humanity,  demand  alike  that  the  question  be  settled  as  early  as  possible,  as  the 
dividends  to  which  we  are  declared  entitled  by  the  Plan  of  Separation,  and  which 
that-  Plan  pledges  shall  be  paid  to  us,  until  the  division  of  property  shall  actually 
take  place,  have  already  been  withheld,  and  our  "  travelling,  supernumerary,  super- 
annuated, and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  are  literally 
suffering  for  the  want  of  funds  given  in  trust  for  their  support — funds  to  which  the 
General  Conference  of  1844  not  only  declared  them  entitled,  but  solemnly  stipulated 
to  divide  with  them  upon  principles  of  "  Christian  kindness  and  strictest  equity." 

"  '  The  division  of  property  and  funds  stipulated  contemplates  no  gratuity  to  the 
South,  for  it  is  well  known  that,  in  receiving  all  the  Plan  of  Separation  accords  to  us, 
we  are  receiving  but  a  part  of  what  the  South  has  contributed  to  the  common  fund  in 
question. 

" '  There  is  another  view  of  this  subject,  which,  in  our  judgment,  should  not  be 
overlooked  by  the  commissioners.  The  proposed  change  in  the  restrictive  rule  was 
regarded  by  all  who  favoured  the  Plan  of  Separation  in  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  merely  as  means  to  an  end.  The  end  aimed  at  was  an  equitable  division  of 
the  Church  property,  and  the  more  certainly  and  securely  to  effect  this,  within  the 
established  forms  of  law  and  order,  the  change  in  question  was  proposed  ;  such  change, 
however,  or  the  want  of  it,  cannot  possibly  affect,  in  any  form,  the  question  of  right, 
or  the  true  issue  in  a  legal  process,  should  it  be  found  necessary  to  institute  such 
process. 

"  '  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  intends  a  most  sacred  appropriation  of 
the  funds  they  may  receive  exclusively  to  the  purposes  specified  in  the  sixth  restric- 


145 

live  article ;  and  not  intending  to  divert  them  in  any  way  to  any  other  object  or 
purpose,  the  change  recommended  by  the  General  Conference  can  only  be  regarded 
as  a  matter  of  form,  subordinate,  in  every  high  moral  and  legal  sense,  to  the  end  had 
in  view  by  the  body  in  the  adoption  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  The  object  in  calling 
attention  to  this  view  of  the  subject  is  not  in  any  way  to  supersede  the  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration, but  to  insist,  as  we  shall  always  continue  to  do,  that  unless  the  letter  of  the 
Plan  shall  interpose  insuperable  difficulties,  its  spirit  and  intention  plainly  and  impe- 
ratively demand,  at  the  hands  of  the  commissioners,  that  they  carry  it  into  effect,  and 
that  they  cannot  fail  to  do  so  without  a  grave  abuse  of  the  trust  reposed  in  them. 
Hence,  again,  we  urge  that  a  meeting  of  the  commissioners  at  an  early  day,  is  neces- 
sary to  settle  this  preliminary  question,  which  it  appears  to  us  can  be  conclusively 
settled  in  no  other  way. 

*' '  It  certainly  cannot  be  necessary  that  we  remind  the  commissioners  and  book 
agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  peace  and  quiet,  not  less  than 
the  character  and  hopes  of  the  Church,  North  and  South,  urgently  require  that  this 
great  property  question  be  settled  as  soon  as  practicable  ;  and  we  are  most  anxious 
that  it  should  be  done  amicably  and  with  good  feeling,  and  especially  that  it  may  be 
done  without  an  appeal  to  the  civil  tribunals  of  the  country  ;  and  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  have  accordingly  instructed  their 
commissioners  to  look  to  such  an  issue  as  the  last  resort,  in  view  of  the  adjustment 
aimed  at. 

"  '  In  conclusion,  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in 
view  of  the  facts  and  considerations  to  which  they  have  adverted  in  this  communica- 
tion, would  respectfully  and  urgently  call  upon  Dr.  Bangs,  as  chairman  of  the  com- 
missioners of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  call  a  meeting  of  the  joint  board 
of  commissioners,  as  hereinbefore  indicated,  and  we  cheerfully  concede  to  him  the 
right,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  of  fixing  the  time  and  place  at  any  period  between 
the  last  of  October  and  the  first  of  March  next.  Very  respectfully, 

"  '  H.  B.  BASCOM, 
A.  L.  P.  GREEN, 
S.  A.  LATTA. 
"  '  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  August  25,  1846. 

"  '  P.  S. — We  would  respectfully  ask  and  claim,  upon  the  ground  of  justice  and 
right,  that  the  commissioners  and  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
make  a  direct  call,  by  authority  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  upon  the  secre- 
taries of  all  the  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  an 
authentic,  attested  statement  of  the  vote  or  action  of  each  conference,  in  relation  to 
the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  ;  and  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  will  do  the  same  within  the  limits-  of  the  Southern  organization. 

"'H.  B.  BASCOM, 
A.  L.  P.  GREEN, 
S.  A.  LATTA.'  " 

"  '  To  H.  B.  Bascom,  A.  L.  P.  Green,   and  S.  A.  Latta,  Commissioners  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South. 

"  '  DEAR  BRETHREN, — We  have  received  your  communication  dated  the  25th  of 
August,  1846,  requesting  us  to  call  a  joint  meeting  of  the  commissioners  appointed 
by  the  General  Conference  of  1844  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  com- 
missioners appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of  1846  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  in  order  to  adjust  the  property  question,  as  provided  for  in  the  provi- 
sional Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844. 

"  '  In  reply  to  this  we  have  to  say  that,  in  our  judgment,  we  have  no  authority  to 
act  in  the  premises,  as  we  have  never  been  officially  notified  that  the  requisite  num- 
ber of  votes  in  the  several  annual  conferences  has  been  given  in  favour  of  the  altera- 
tion in  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  nor  have  we  any 
authority  to  call  on  the  secretaries  of  the  several  annual  conferences  to  give  us  the 
requisite  information  as  you  have  suggested. 

"  '  On  these  accounts  we  must  respectfully  decline  to  act  in  the  premises,  as  our 
action  would,  in  our  opinion,  be  null  and  void.  N.  BANGS, 

GEO.  PECK, 

"  '  New-York,  October  14,  1846.  J.  B.  FINLKY.'  •» 

10 


146 

The  communication  of  H.  B.  Bascom,  and  others,  commissioners,  to  the  bishops 
and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  General  Conference  assembled, 
dated  Pittsburgh,  May  llth,  1848  :— 

"Pittsburgh,  May  11,  1848. 

"To  the  Bishops  and  Members  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  General  Conference  assembled. 

"  REV.  AND  DEAR  BRETHREN, — The  undersigned,  commissioners  and  appointee  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  respectfully  represent  to  your  body,  that 
pursuant  to  our  appointment,  and  in  obedience  to  specific  instructions,  we  notified 
the  commissioners  and  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  our  readiness  to 
proceed  to  the  adjustment  of  the  property  question,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844  ;  and  we  furthermore  state,  that 
the  chairman  of  the  board  of  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
informed  us  they  would  not  act  in  the  case,  and  referred  us  to  your  body  for  the  set- 
tlement of  the  question  as  to  the  division  of  the  property  and  funds  of  the  Church  ; 
and,  being  furthermore  instructed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  South,  in  case  of  a  failure  to  settle  with  your  commissioners,  to  attend 
the  session  of  your  body  in  1848,  for  the  'settlement  and  adjustment  of  all  questions 
involving  property  and  funds,  which  may  be  pending  between  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  take  this  method  of  in- 
forming you  of  our  presence,  and  of  our  readiness  to  attend  to  the  matters  committed 
to  our  trust  and  agency  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ;  and  we  desire 
to  be  informed  as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  it  may  suit  your  views  and  con- 
venience to  consummate  with  us  the  division  of  the  property  and  the  funds  of  the 
Church,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  with  so  much  unanimity  by 
the  General  Conference  of  1844.  And  for  our  authority  in  the  premises  we  respect- 
fully refer  you  to  the  accompanying  document,  marked  A. 

"  A.  L.  P.  GREEN,     j 

C.  B.  PARSONS,        >  Commissioners. 

L.  PIERCE.  ) 

JNO.  EARLY,  Appointee." 

To  this  communication  no  reply  was  received. 

THIRD  DAY.— WEDNESDAY,  MAY  21,  1851. 

MR.  CHOATE, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  I  shall  have  occasion,  on  behalf  of  the 
defendants,  to  make  a  few  additional  references  ;  and  I  have  arranged  with  Mr.  Lord, 
if  it  may  be  sanctioned  by  the  Court,  that  those  references  may  be  made,  and  those 
passages  read,  after  he  shall  have  concluded  his  argument. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — The  Court  have  no  objections. 
MR.  LORD, — Give  me  the  pages. 

MR.  CHOATE, — I  will  refer  to  the  "  First  -of  the  Proofs,"  p.  136  ;  the  Journals  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1848,  p.  177,  to  prove  that  the  number  of  votes  required 
by  the  Discipline,  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  had  not  been  given. 

At  the  request  of  Mr.  Lord,  I  will  read  a  passage  on  the  subject  of  the  vote  of 
the  conferences : — 

"  The  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church  beg  leave  further  to  report  in  part, 
That  they  have  received  of  the  Commissioners  of  the  Church,  South,  an  account  of 
the  vote  in  the  Southern  -conferences  in  relation  to  the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive 
rule,  and  from  a  count  of  the  votes  from  all  the  annual  conferences,  find  the  follow- 
ing result  : — 

"  The  votes  from  the  conferences  at  the  South  stand  thus  : — For  the  alteration 
971,  and  against  it  3.  From  the  conferences  now  embraced  within  the  Methodist 

10* 


147 

Episcopal  Church,  for  the  alteration,  1,164;  against  it,  1,067.  Whole  number  for 
the  alteration,  2,135  ;  against  it,  1,070.  The  whole  number  necessary  to  authorize 
the  alteration,  2,404.  Subtract  from  this  number,  2,135,  the  number  of  votes  actually 
cast  for  the  alteration,  leaves  269,  which  is  the  number  of  votes  wanting  to  authorize 
the  change  of  the  rule.  GEORGE  PECK,  Chairman." 

MR.  LORD, — The  page  containing  that  report  was  pasted  in  after  the  book  seems 
to  have  been  published.  Will  you  inform  me  when  it  was  put  there  1 

MR.  CHOATE, — I  am  unable  to  state. 

MR.  LORD, — My  learned  friends  on  the  other  side  published  that  report  of  the 
"  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church,"  from  the  Journals  of  the  General  Confe- 
rence of  1848.  The  Court  may  see  that  a  part  of  the  Journal  of  1848  is  printed  in 
book  No.  1,  but  it  does  not  contain  this  report  of  the  vote  on  the  change  of  the  sixth 
restrictive  article. 

MR.  CHOATE, — Mr.  Lord  will  find  that  it  refers  to  it.  I  will  read  it  from  page 
136  of  the  Book  of  Proofs,  No.  1  : — 

"  May  18th. — The  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church  presented  a  report  on 
the  state  of  the  vote  to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  t»  the  effect  that  the  number 
of  votes  required  by  the  Discipline  to  change  said  rule  had  not  been  given." 

I  shall  refer  to  p.  47  of  the  same  book,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to  the 
notice  of  the  Court  which  conferences  voted  against  making  a  grant  to  the  Canada 
conference  of  a  portion  of  the  funds  ;  to  the  same  book,  pp.  131—134,  containing  the 
address  of  the  bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844 ;  to  the  same  book, 
pp.  154—165,  on  what  are  called  infractions  by  the  South  of  the  Plan  of  Separation. 

MR.  LORD, — Does  Mr.  Choate  understand,  on  the  subject  of  these  minutes  of 
1848,  that  they  are  not  evidence  that  the  things  there  stated  took  place  1 

MR.  CHOATE, — Certainly  ;  they  are  all  read  under  stipulations.  The  same  obser- 
vation will  apply  to  what  Mr.  Lord  read. 

MR.  LORD, — The  transactions  of  the  General  Conferences,  up  to  1844,  are  intro- 
duced as  the  joint  acts  of  both  parties.  After  1844,  the  minutes  and  journals  of 
each  party  are  introduced,  to  show  what  the  bodies  did  and  said,  but  not  to  have  the 
effect  of  establishing  as  facts  the  recitals  which  they  say  other  people  said  or  did. 
They  are  merely  admitted  as  authentic  papers,  to  show  the  action  of  the  bodies.  - 

MR.  CHOATE, — I  shall  refer  many  times  to  the  "  History  of  the  Discipline,"  but  I 
will  indicate  such  passages  as  I  have  on  my  brief,  for  the  information  of  Mr.  Lord. 
They  are  p.  47,  p.  10,  p.  251,  and  pp.  254,  and  the  following.  And  I  am  sure  Mr. 
Lord  will  be  glad  to  have  me  correct  one  mistake  into  which  he  inadvertently  fell, 
and  which  I  will  enable  him  to  correct  for  himself.  It  was  said  that  Bishop  Andrew 
was  not  allowed  to- take  part  in  the  inauguration  of  bishops  in  1844.  I  shall  refer  to- 
the  journals  of  that  conference  of  1844,  p.  83,  to  show  that  the  vote  upon  the  bishop's 
case  was  on  the  1st  of  June.  That  is  an  admitted  date.  I  shall  then  refer  to  the 
same  journals,  p.  139,  to  show  that  the  inauguration  of  the  bishops  took  place  upon 
the  10th  of  June ;  and  again  to  the  second  of  the  Proofs,  p.  105,  to  show  from  a  letter 
of  Bishop  Andrew  that  he  left  New- York  on  the  2d  day  of  June. 

MR.  REVERDY  JOHNSON, — The  vote,  I  believe,  was  on  the  1st. 
MR.  LORD, — Bishop  Andrew,  in  his  letter,  says  :— 


148 

"  Immediately  after  the  passing  of  the  memorable  resolution  in  my  case  in  the  late 
General  Conference,  I  left  the  city  of  New- York,  and  spent  the  next  day,  which  was 
the  Sabbath,  at  Newark,  N.  J." 

MK.  CHOATK, — I  am  informed  that  he  did  not  return.  I  believe  that  is  quite  cer- 
tain. 

I  shall  refer  also  to  pp.  43,  46,  and  47  of  the  first  of  the  Proofs,  for  the  purpose 
of  showing  that  it  has  been  the  usage  of  the  General  Conference  to  canvass  votes 
given  by  the  annual  conferences  upon  the  subject  of  the  restrictive  rules — the  usage 
of  the  General  Conference  holden  next  subsequently. 

Before  commencing  his  argument,  Mr.  Lord  presented  to  the  court  the  Points  of 
Complainants,  as  follows : — 

I.  The  capital  arising  from  the  profits  of  the  Book  Concern  was  the  result  of  the 
common  labours  and  services  of  all  the  members  of  all  the  conferences. — It  was  not 
a  charitable  fund  merely  from  donations. — It  was  a  fund  of  earnings,  to  make  up  the 
deficiency  of  compensation  for  services  rendered,  and  to  provide  for  those  who  earned 
it,  when  they  became  incapable  of  labour,  and  for  those  who  were  dependent  upon 
them. 

II.  It  was  distributed  by  the  annual  conferences,  but  belonged  in  actual  right  to 
the  beneficiaries,  and  as  such  was,  and  is,  protected  by  the  sixth  restrictive  rule. 

III.  The  title  of  the  beneficiaries,  at  the  time  immediately  before  the  separation  of 
the  Church  into  two  parts,  was  perfect ;  and  it  cannot  be  defeated  or  forfeited  with- 
out a  clear  proof  of  breach  of  condition  by  the  beneficiaries. 

IV.  Even  if  a  breach  of  condition  by  the  annual  conferences,  by  whom  the  fund 
was  to  be  distributed,  could  forfeit,  there  has  been  no  forfeiture,  because  the  General 
Conference  of  1844  had  the  power  to  consent  to  an  amicable  division  of  the  confer- 
ences on  grave  causes,  touching  the  general  efficiency  of  the  Church. 

CV.  The  General  Conference  of  1844  did,  in  fact,  and  on  a  proper  ground,  consent 
to  such  division,  to  take  effect  immediately,  in  the  choice  of  the  Southern  conferences, 
md  without  any  condition. 

H^f 

y  VI.  The  General  Conference  of  the  Church,  South,  was  duly  and  properly  organ-' 
/  ized,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  and  is  in  every  respect  as  properly  a  Gene- 
v  ral  Conference  within  its  limits,  as  the  General  Conference  of  the  Churches  North. 

VII.  The  beneficiaries  of  the  fund  in  question,  therefore,  who  belonged  to  the 
Southern  conferences,  did  not,  by  the  new  organization,  lose  any  rights,  nor  were 
they  disqualified  in  any  manner  from  claiming  their  share  of  the  funds.     And  such 
claim  is  appropriately  made  through  the  General  Conference,  South,  which  succeeds 
to  the  place  of  the  prior  General  Conference  of  the  whole  Church. 

VIII.  An  account  should  therefore  be  ordered  of  the  proportions  of  the  profits  of 
the  Book  Concern,  according  to  the  numbers  in  the  minutes  of  1 844,  and  at  the  same 
ratio  of  the  profits  since. — Also  the  capital  of  the  fund  should  be  decreed  to  be 
divided  in  the  same  way,  and  paid  over  to  the  commissioners,  South,  as  new  trus- 
tees, or  to  proper  trustees  to  be  appointed  by  the  Court. 

The  profits  of  the  past  are  to  be  subject  to  distribution,  according  to  the  directions 
of  the  General  Conference,  South,  whether  the  fund  remain  with  the  present  trus- 
tees, or  be  paid  over  to  new  trustees. 

D.  D.  LORD,  Solicitor  of  Complainants. 
L±v'  JOHNSON  ,\  <>f  Counsel. 


149 

MR.  LORD, — May  it  please  your  Honours  ;  there  is  a  starting-point  in  this  contro- 
versy, as  to  which  we  are  all  agreed — about  which  there  is  no  manner  of  doubt.  That  is 
this :  that  immediately  prior  to  the  separation,  whether  it  took  place  in  1844  or  1845, 
all  the  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  distressed  travelling  preachers  belonging 
to  the  Southern  conferences,  whom  we  now  represent,  and  their  wives,  widows,  and 
children,  in  that  Connexion,  were  entitled  to  an  interest  in  this  fund,  as  well  as  the 
persons  in  similar  relations,  belonging  to  the  Northern  conferences.  What  the 
character  of  that  title  was,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  inquire.  I  suppose  it  was  a 
charity — one  of  those  uses  which  attach  themselves  to  transitory  objects,  so  to  say, 
rather  than  one  of  those  specific  trusts  which  are  held  by  titles  analogous  to  those 
of  legal  estates.  But  it  seems  to  me,  that,  for  the  purpose  of  starting  our  reasoning  on 
this  subject,  it  may  be  averred  as  agreed  upon,  that  as  a  matter  of  right,  not  as  a 
matter  of  mere  gift  or  charity,  the  supernumerary  and  superannuated  preachers,  their 
wives,  widows,  and  children,  were  entitled  to  participate  in  the  profits  of  this  Book 
Concern.  It  may  be  that  this  fund  was  to  be  distributed  by  the  judgment  of  the 
annual  conferences,  and  not  by  any  act  of  the  General  Conference.  As  to  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  on  that  subject  its  action  was  purely  ministerial.  It  merely  took  the 
account,  and  enforced  the  obligation  of  having  the  profits  of  that  fund  properly  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  annual  conferences  for  distribution.  It  had  no  real  discretion  on 
that  subject.  Without  an  utter  and  entire  abandonment  of  its  primary  duty  in  rela- 
tion to  the  subject,  it  had  nothing  to  do  but  to  enforce  all  the  accountability  of  the 
book-steward  to  them  for  the  appropriation  of  the  profit  of  this  fund  properly  ;  and  it 
superintended  the  management  of  it,  or  at  least  supervised  that  superintendence,  and 
the  fund  was  obliged  to  be  distributed  through  the  annual  conferences. 

Now,  as  to  the  duty  of  the  annual  conferences,  as  to  their  right  on  that  subject. 
They  had  no  interest  in  this  matter.  All  that  they  had,  was  the  obligation  incum- 
bent upon  them,  as  Christian  and  faithful  men,  to  see  that  the  profits  assigned  to  each 
annual  conference  should  be  distributed  according  to  the  intent  and  purpose  of  this 
fund.  That  is,  it  should  be  applied  to  those  whom  they  should  ascertain  within 
their  limits  to  be  supernumerary  and  superannuated  preachers,  and  travelling  preachers 
having  their  salaries  deficient,  and  to  the  wives,  widows,  children,  and  orphans  of 
preachers.  Now,  you  will  see  that  until  we  get  to  the  actual  beneficiaries,  we  find  no 
person  having  anything  but  a  mere  administrative  right,  a  mere  agency,  and  as  to  selec- 
tion, no  discretion.  They  had  not  a  right  to  select  a  meritorious  or  an  unmeritorious 
man,  woman,  or  child.  They  were  bound  to  ascertain  simply  certain  facts.  Is  this 
a  supernumerary  preacher  1  Is  this  a  superannuated  preacher  1  Is  this  the  wife  or 
child  of  a  preacher  1  Are  these  the  orphans  of  preachers  ?  Is  this  a  travelling 
preacher  unpaid  his  small  salary  1  There  was  no  discretion  in  the  conferences  on 
this  subject  at  all.  Their  duty  was  the  simple  ascertaining  of  a  plain  fact — a  fact,  I 
suppose,  always  ascertained  by  the  simple  declaration  of  the  parties  entitled  to  re- 
ceive ;  because  in  this  Connexion  of  religious  men,  of  the  character  of  preachers,  and 
families  of  preachers,  it  is  not  only  a  proper  assumption  in  point  of  law,  but  a  proper 
presumption  in  point  of  fact,  that  the  mere  statement  by  these  various  beneficiaries 
would  be  taken  as  decisive  on  the  subject. 

Now,  then,  we  come  ultimately  to  this  proposition — and  I  think  it  will  scarcely  be 
denied — that  these  beneficiaries  had  directly  an  interest  in  this  fund,  through  the  me- 
dium of  the  administration  of  a  charity.  I  do  not  go  into  the  question,  whether  they 
had  a  legal  right  or  an  equitable  title.  In  this  Court  it  is  enough  to  say,  that  they  had 
that  sort  of  right  which  cannot  be  violated  without  a  breach  of  trust  on  the  part  of 
those  who  administer  this  fund.  If  they  have  no  legal  estate — no  legal,  equitable 
estate,  so  to  say  ;  that  is,  no  such  permanent  estate  in  equity  as  has  an  analogy  to  le- 


150 

gal  estates — it  only  operates  to  make  the  obligation  on  the  consciences  of  the  trustees 
more  binding  and  powerful ;  and  these  persons,  unprotected  by  legal  securities,  and 
by  those  things  which  are  equitable  protections,  are  more  entirely  protected  in  their 
absolute  right  by  the  uncovered  character  of  this  fund.  In  other  words,  it  has  become 
a  right — a  valid,  perfect,  and  established  debt  of  conscience  and  of  honour ;  such  a 
debt  of  conscience  and  of  honour  as  comes  within  the  administration  of  relief  by  courts 
of  equity  under  this  doctrine  of  charities.  On  that  subject  I  propose  to  define  my 
view  of  a  charity,  and  then  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  this  fund,  to  show  that, 
except  in  the  mode  of  its  administration,  in  law  it  is  in  no  sense  a  charity,  but  a  right. 

I  suppose  that  the  distinction  between  a  specific  trust,  and  one  of  those  trusts 
which  are  administrative  as  charities,  is  this  :  a  specific  trust  has  individual  be- 
neficiaries who  are  marked  out,  who  take,  either  for  periods  of  time,  or  for  life,  or  in  suc- 
cession, by  way  of  perpetuity — that  is,  such  a  perpetuity  as  the  law  allows  under 
definite  limitations — limitations  as  to  the  person,  when  the  right  is  once  vested  in 
that  person  through  some  legal  mode  of  succession.  A  charity,  I  suppose,  is  a  trust 
where  the  beneficiaries  come  in  by  a  casual  conformity  to  the  descriptions  of  the 
charity.  I  mean  a  casual  conformity :  that  is  to  say,  a  man  may  this  year  come 
within  the  description  of  the  poor  living  in  Water-street,  for  whom  a  foundation  of 
charity  is  established,  and  next  year  he  may  not.  It  is  that  transitory  character  of 
the  beneficiary  which  I  suppose  in  law  defines  a  charity,  and  distinguishes  it  from 
a  trust.  We  are  not  to  suppose  that  this  right  of  a  charity  is  imperfect  because  it 
is  transitory.  I  presently  intend  to  go  into  the  character  of  this,  treating  it  as  a 
charity,  to  show  that  it  is  not  one  of  what  moralists  call  "  imperfect  obligations,"  but 
morally,  and  in  conscience,  of  the  highest  and  most  perfect  obligation  ;  and  that  the 
only  imperfection  of  the  obligation  is  that  which  turns  you  over  from  the  specific 
administration  of  the  law  of  trust,  to  the  more  liberal  administration  of  the  law  of 
charity. 

Now,  supposing,  for  a  moment,  that  I  am  right  in  this  character  of  the  title  of  these 
beneficiaries,  and  that  the  women,  the  children,  the  supernumeraries,  and  worn-out 
preachers  of  the  Southern  conferences  had  rights  which  the  Court  would  regard 
prior  to  that  separation,  the  question  comes  up,  and  that  is  the  great  question  we 
are  discussing,  Have  they  those  rights  still  1  Why  have  they  not  1  Are  they  not 
Methodists  1  Have  they  departed  one  scruple  in  doctrine  or  in  discipline  ?  I  mean 
the  beneficiaries  whom  I  represent ;  they  are  not  the  bishops.  Some  of  them  are 
members  of  conferences,  and  some  of  them  are  not,  and  the  right  is  equal  to  them 
all.  But  why  have  they  not  those  rights  still  1  Have  they  ever  been  tried  ?  The 
gentlemen  put  it  in  their  answer  most  distinctly  and  clearly  on  the  ground  that  they 
have  forfeited  the  right.  They  use  the  term  "  forfeited "  in  their  answer.  They 
say,  they  "  forfeited  "  it  by  secession.  Secession  from  what  1  That  is  the  question, 
and  the  question  between  us  is  to  be,  whether  there  is,  in  regard  to  this  fund,  any 
such  forfeiture  as  is  set  up  by  these  gentlemen.  And  in  saying  "  set  up  by  these 
gentlemen,"  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  explain  myself,  that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood. 
By  "  these  gentlemen,"  I  do  not  mean  these  defendants  whom  I  conceive  to  be  not 
volunteers  in  this  matter ;  they  are  legal  personages,  representing,  as  I  suppose  I 
may  say  without  giving  offence,  a  rather  tumultuous  body  behind  them,  a  changeable 
body  to  whom  they  are  accountable,  and  in  regard  to  whom  they  must  protect  them- 
selves by  the  most  careful  conduct.  They,  however,  taking  advice  on  the  subject, 
say  we,  the  beneficiaries,  have  "  forfeited"  this  right.  We  forfeit  it ;  by  which  I 
understand,  there  is  some  implied  condition  which  we  have  broken,  or  some  term  of 
the  grant  which  renders  this  charity  no  longer  applicable  to  us. 

Before  going  into  the  inquiry  which  I  propose  first  to  institute,  I  beg  leave  to  say 


151 

one  word  on  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  relief.  There  will  be  no  difficulty  on  this 
subject.  There  need  be  no  apprehension  of  a  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
the  dividing  of  the  fund.  I  suppose  it  must  be  divided.  I  suppose  the  reasoning 
which  we  shall  adopt  on  this  subject,  will  call  for  a  division  of  the  fund,  of  the  capi- 
tal itself ;  but  that  does  not  necessarily  embarrass  our  case  ;  for  if  these  beneficiaries 
for  whom  I  speak  are  entitled,  then  the  fund  may  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  agents 
here,  an  undivided  fund,  and  be  administered  by  them  ;  and  relief  would  be  afforded 
by  ordering  them  to  take  the  minutes  of  the  conferences  of  the  South,  in  regard  to 
the  preachers  and  persons  of  the  South  entitled,  and  turn  over  the  annual  dividends 
to  them  as  long  as  there  is  a  Book  Concern  yielding  profits  to  be  divided,  that  they 
may  thus  be  distributed.  There  is,  as  I  conceive,  no  formal  or  technical  difficulty  of 
that  sort  to  be  set  up.  I  am  sure,  that  if  the  relief  to  which  I  conceive  beyond  all 
question  we  shall  be  adjudged  to  be  entitled,  if  these  beneficiaries  shall  have  their 
rights,  it  will  be  an  advantageous  arrangement  all  round,  that  the  fund  should  be 
divided,  and  I  presume  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  law  in  doing  it.  But  that  is  not 
essential  to  the  relief  to  which  we  are  entitled  under  this  bill.  Nor  is  it  essential 
that  the  proper  persons  who  are  entitled  to  take  the  capital  of  the  fund  should  now 
be  before  the  Court.  You  have  the  travelling  preachers  before  you.  You  have 
the  supernumerary  and  worn-out  preachers.  You  have  no  wives  and  children  before 
you.  But  these  three  descriptions  of  persons  come  before  this  Court,  so  that  this 
Court  is  bound,  in  acting,  to  declare  that  these  persons  are  prosecuting  in  behalf  of 
themselves  and  of  those  who  possess  the  same  right  with  them ;  so  that  the  question 
is  not  embarrassed  by  any  formal  difficulty  of  that  sort.  It  comes  up  clearly,  dis- 
tinctly, and  fairly,  for  the  judgment  and  decision  of  this  Court. 

In  the  consideration  of  this  subject,  I  propose  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  this 
fund.  That  is  the  inquiry  in  the  first  point  which  I  have  laid  before  your  Honours. 
In  all  these  cases  of  charities,  you  are  aware  that  there  has  been  a  vagueness  in  the 
character  of  the  trust  which  is  designated  for  a  charitable  use.  That  vagueness 
seems  to  be  almost  essential.  It  has  almost  always  existed  in  regard  to  them. 
Sometimes  they  exist  only  by  implication  ;  for  instance,  the  case  of  Lady  Hewley's 
charity,  a  leading  case  in  modem  days,  in  which  the  law  has  probably  been  finally 
summed  up.  It  was  held  that  her  gift  of  a  piece  of  land,  as  a  foundation  for  Pro- 
testant Dissenters,  in  a  very  vague  and  general  way,  should  be  administered  by  a 
Court  of  Equity,  and  they  should  inquire  into  the  character  of  Lady  Hewley's  reli- 
gious opinions,  in  order  to  ascertain  whom  she  meant  by  "  Protestant  Dissenters." 
That  inquiry  into  the  character  of  the  fund,  as  growing  out  of  the  character  of  those 
who  contributed,  of  those  who  formed  it,  and,  if  a  gift,  of  those  who  gave  it,  has 
always  been  a  material,  necessary,  and  legitimate  subject  of  inquiry  in  the  administra- 
tion of  these  charities. 

I  will  give  your  Honours  all  the  references  to  cases  which  bear  on  the  subject.  It 
is  not  a  controverted  subject,  as  I  believe  ;  but  it  may  be  convenient  for  the  Court  to 
have  the  references,  and  I  will  give  them  all  together.  The  first  one  to  which  I  refer, 
is  that  of  Field  vs.  Field,  9  Wendell,  p.  400,  decided  in  October,  1832.  That  de- 
cided the  question  at  law.  It  went  upon  a  mere  question  of  actual  organization.  It 
was  not  a  question  of  equity  as  to  the  proper  administration  according  to  the  intent 
of  the  donor,  but  a  question  of  the  mere  actual  succession  of  one  organization  to  an- 
other. This  subject  was  very  fully  canvassed  in  this  State,  in  the  case  of  the  Lu- 
theran Church,  (Miller  vs.  Gable,  2  Denio's  Reports,  518,  in  the  Court  of  Appeals,) 
decided  finally  in  December,  1845.  It  had  been  previously  discussed  by  the  Chan- 
cellor, (10  Paige,  646,)  and  prior  to  that  by  Vice  Chancellor  Hoffman  in  his  reports, 
to  which  I  have  no  reference  ;  his  opinion,  however,  went  so  much  on  the  theolo- 


152 

gical  parts  of  the  question,  that  it  does  not  enlighten  us  as  much  as  the  other.  There 
the  whole  subject  was  canvassed.  That  was  a  religious  charity,  and  the  question 
arose  in  a  double  shape.  One  was  the  question  of  a  departure  from  religious  doc- 
trines ;  the  other,  a  question  of  departure  from  adherence  to  the  religious  governing 
body.  In  all  these  cases  it  was  held  that  the  adherence  should  be  in  point  of  doc- 
trine, or  a  Court  of  Equity  would  reform  or  correct  the  abuse  of  the  property  ;  and 
when  it  was  plain,  and  evident,  and  clear,  that  the  charity  was  founded  in  connexion 
with  a  religious  government,  they  would  always  establish  it  in  a  Court  of  Equity ; 
but  they  held  that  in  that  case  it  must  be  very  clear.  They  also  held,  that  if  in  the 
origin  of  the  charity,  it  was  not  so  subject,  but  that  those  who  administered  the  cha- 
rity afterwards  by  agreement  and  voluntary  connexion  did  subject  it,  that  it  was 
not  misapplied,  although  the  body  afterwards  withdrew  from  that  ecclesiastical  con- 
nexion, and  it  then  stood  only  on  the  question  of  conformity  of  doctrines.  However, 
your  Honours  will  no  doubt  find  great  instruction  upon  this  subject  from  that  case. 

The  other  cases  bearing  on  the  subject  I  will  give  without  comment.  In  1814,  the 
case  of  Davis  vs.  Jenkins,  3d  Vesey  and  Beame's,  152.  You  will  find  in  this  case 
a  very  minute  and  careful  inquiry,  free  from  all  collateral  inquiries,  into  the  character 
and  understanding  of  the  founders  of  the  charity.  I  cite  it  to  show  that  this  inquiry 
into  the  character  of  the  original  foundation  of  the  charity,  the  nature  of  the  contribu- 
tions, and  the  character  of  the  men  who  contributed  to  it,  goes  to  enlighten  the  Court 
in  ascertaining  the  character  of  the  charity  in  order  to  execute  it.  The  case  of  the 
Attorney  General  vs.  Pearson,  3  Merivale,  352.  It  also  appears  in  7  Simon's  Reports, 
290,  republished  in  10  English  Chancery  Reports,  61.  That  merely  upholds  the 
principle  that  the  doctrines  of  the  founder  of  the  charity,  it  being  a  religious  one, 
should  be  enforced,  and  that  a  majority  of  the  trustees,  a  temporal  body,  should  not 
be  permitted  to  use  the  property  in  deviation  from  those  doctrines.  Again  :  in  the 
case  of  Leslie  vs.  Burney,  2  Russell,  114,  also  reported  in  3  English  Chancery  Re- 
ports, 46,  which  was  the  case  of  a  meeting-house  in  London  of  the  Scotch  Presby- 
terian Church.  There  was  an  election  by  the  elders  and  communicants,  excluding 
the  seat-holders.  That  was  contested,  on  the  ground  that  these  seat-holders  had  all 
contributed ;  but  it  was  held  that  as  that  Church  was  founded  by  Scotch  Presbyterians 
this  was  right,  and  such  a  mode  should  be  upheld.  This  shows  that  in  going  into 
this  inquiry,  the  character  of  the  fund,  the  character  of  the  donors  constituting  it,  and 
all  that  contribute  to  a  fund  which  grows  out  of  its  origin,  should  be  looked  at  and 
regarded  in  the  decision  upon  it.  The  case  of  the  Attorney  General  vs.  Shore,  7 
Simon's,  290,  note,  was  a  similar  case  to  that  of  the  Attorney  General  and  Pierson. 
Another  case,  not  however  bearing  very  directly  on  the  question,  but  to  which  I  will 
give  a  reference,  is  Milligan  vs.  Mitchell,  3  Milne  and  Craige,  77. 

We  contend,  in  regard  to  the  character  of  this  fund,  that  the  capital  arising  from 
the  profits  of  the  Book  Concern  was  the  result  of  the  common  labours  and  services, 
of  all  the  members  of  all  the  conferences.  It  was  not  a  charitable  fund  merely  from 
donations.  It  was  not  a  charity  of  that  sort  in  which  the  beneficiary  comes,  without 
any  previous  right,  to  beg  alms.  It  was  not  a  gift.  It  was  a  charity  which  grew, 
as  we  shall  attempt  to  show,  out  of  actual,  laborious,  self-denying,  beneficial  services* 
just  as  much  as  any  Savings'  Bank  or  Life  Insurance.  At  the  same  time,  from  the 
transitory  character  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  fund,  it  became  in  law  one  of  those 
things  which  must  be  administered  as  a  charity.  We  say  it  was  a  fund  of  earnings 
to  make  up  the  deficiency  of  compensation  for  services  rendered,  and  to  provide  for 
those  who  earned  it,  when  they  became  incapable  of  labour,  and  for  those  who  were 
dependent  on  them. 

Now  let  us  look  to  the  character  of  this  fund  ;  and  this,  in  my  humble  judgment, 


153 

is  a  very  material  inquiry  in  this  case  ;  for  the  question  of  "  forfeiting,"  as  it  is  put 
in  the  answer,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  entitling  yourself  to  alms.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion here  distinctly  put  as  a  question  of  forfeiture.  A  man  comes  to  me  for  alms  ; 
it  is  a  matter  between  me  and  my  conscience  whether  I  will  give  him  alms — he  has 
no  right.  But  if  a  servant,  who  has  rendered  me  services  during  the  prime  of  his 
days,  upon  the  understanding  fhat  I  should  take  care  of  him  in  his  old  age,  and  I 
gave  him  no  bond  for  it,  and  he  has  become  old  and  decrepid,  the  Court  will  see  how 
different  is  the  application  he  makes  to  me,  from  a  man  with  whom  I  have  had  no 
connexion  at  all.  You  cannot  but  see  that  in  this  case  there  is  in  the  outset  a  na- 
tural equity — there  is  an  appeal  to  the  very  foundation  out  of  which  the  charity  itself 
springs.  There  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  subject,  a  light  to  guide  us  in  the  con- 
sideration of  this  matter. 

How  did  this  fund  arise  ?  Your  Honours,  in  examining  Emory's  History,  will  find 
that  it  had  its  origin  with  the  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Church.  They  undertook 
to  see  to  the  supplying  of  books,  and  they  were  to  see  to  payment  for  the  books. 
Upon  our  book,  No.  1,  page  17,  we  find  this  extract  from  the  "  History:" — 

"  Ezekiel  Cooper  is  appointed  the  superintendent  of  the  Book  Concern,"  (Ezekiel 
Cooper  was  in  fact  the  founder  of  the  profitable  Book  Concern,)  "  who  shall  have 
authority  to  regulate  the  publications,  and  all  other  parts  of  the  business,  according 
to  the  state  of  the  finances  from  tune  to  time.  It  shall  be  his  duty  to  inform  the  an- 
nual conferences  if  any  of  the  preachers  or  private  members  of  the  society  neglect  to 
make  due  payment." 

There  you  perceive  the  preachers  and  private  members  subject  to  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction.  They  are  to  see  that  these  books  realize  money. 

"  He  may  publish  any  books  or  tracts  which,  at  any  tune,  may  be  approved  of,  or 
recommended  by,  the  majority  of  an  annual  conference,  provided  such  books  or  tracts 
be  also  approved  of  by  the  book  committee,  which  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Philadel- 
phia Annual  Conference." 

It  was  therefore  the  taste  of  the  annual  conferences  which  was  to  determine  what 
books  were  to  be  printed.  Ezekiel  Cooper  had  not  the  right  of  a  common  bookseller 
to  print  what  he  pleased ;  that  was  a  right  of  the  preachers,  meeting  in  annual  con- 
ferences, which  were  composed  of  all  the  preachers,  and  were  not  delegated  bodies. 
In  1800,  the  General  Conference  was  composed  of  all  the  members  of  all  the  annual 
conferences.  Their  taste  in  the  selection,  their  reading,  their  examination  of  sub- 
jects, was  that  which  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  books  which  should  receive  the  im- 
primatur which  gave  them  a  currency,  and  made  their  publication  profitable. 

"  Let  his  accounts  and  books  be  examined  by  the  Philadelphia  Conference  at  the 
tune  of  the  sitting  of  the  said  conference. 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  presiding  elder,  where  no  book-steward  is  appointed, 
to  see  that  his  district  be  fully  supplied  with  books." 

So  your  Honours  will  see  that  it  did  not  merely  mean  that  this  community,  which 
perhaps  lacked  intelligence  and  information  more  at  that  day  than  at  the  present, 
should  be  left  without  having  the  benefits  which  the  press  distributes  over  every  com- 
munity where  it  is  known.  There  you  have  one  of  the  elders  determining  that 
matter  ;  but  they  did  not  leave  it  there. 

"  He  is  to  order  such  books  as  are  wanted,  and  to  give  directions  to  whose  care 
the  same  are  to  be  sent ;  and  he  is  to  take  the  oversight  of  all  our  books  sent  into 
his  district,  and  to  account  with  the  superintendent  for  the  same." 

"  Our  books."  Whose  books'!  Why,  the  books  of  these  preachers;  their  books 
as  a  denomination ;  those  which  they  sanctioned,  which  they  selected  and  caused  to  be 
distributed,  and  in  fact  persuaded  to  be  purchased.  Again  : — 


154 

"  He  is  to  have  the  books  distributed  among  the  several  circuits  in  his  district, 
and  is  to  keep  an  account  with  each  preacher  who  receives  or  sells  the  books  ;  and 
is  to  receive  the  money,  and  to  forward  it  to  the  superintendent." 

Every  preacher,  therefore,  was  an  agent  in  the  diffusion  of  the  literature  of  the 
Church ;  a  wise,  very  wise  plan — wise  for  the  people,  and  wise  for  the  government 
of  the  Church :  but  it  was  the  act  of  the  preachers ;  it  was  the  labour  of  the 
preachers  that  made  this  the  great  Book  Concern,  which  it  ever  came  to  be.  The 
preachers,  we  have  already  seen,  selected  the  books ;  the  presiding  elders  had  it  in 
charge  to  see  that  they  were  supplied  to  the  preachers  in  their  several  circuits  ;  and 
they  were  to  sell  them.  Again  : 

"  When  a  presiding  elder  is  removed,  he  is  to  make  a  full  settlement  for  all  the 
books  sold  or  remaining  in  his  district ;  and  is  also  to  make  a  transfer  to  his  succes- 
sor of  all  the  books  and  accounts  left  with  the  preachers  in  the  district,  the  amount 
of  which  shall  go  to  his  credit,  and  pass  to  the  debit  of  his  successor." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  this  was  a  business  most  strictly  and  directly  connected 
with  the  ministry  of  this  Church,  calling  not  only  for  activity  and  labour  on  their 
part,  but  pecuniary  accountability  on  the  part  of  every  preacher  in  every  Methodist 
circuit. 

"  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  preacher,  who  has  the  charge  of  a  circuit,  to  see 
that  his  circuit  be  duly  supplied  with  books,  and  to  take  charge  of  all  the  books  which 
are  sent  to  him,  from  time  to  time,  or  which  may  be  in  his  circuit  ;  and  he  is  to  ac- 
count with  the  presiding  elder  for  the  same." 

That  does  not  mean  that  he  is  merely  to  bring  the  books,  that  his  people  may  pur- 
chase them,  although  that  would  be  a  meritorious  participancy  in  this  fund  ;  but  it 
meant,  "  Sir,  in  your  preaching  press  upon  your  people  the  necessity  of  learning,  as 
well  by  the  press  as  by  the  living  voice,  the  doctrines,  practices,  morals,  and  virtues 
of  this  religious  faith  which  you  preach  to  them."  Again  : — 

"  When  a  preacher  leaves  his  circuit,  he  must  settle  with  the  presiding  elder  for 
all  the  books  he  has  disposed  of ;  he  is  also  to  make  out  an  inventory  of  all  that  are 
remaining  unsold,  which  shall  be  collected  at  one  place  ;  the  amount  of  which  shall 
go  to  his  credit,  and  be  transferred  to  his  successor,  who  is  to  take  charge  of  the 
same.  If  the  preacher  who  has  charge  of  the  circuit  be  negligent  in  dispersing  the 
books,  the  presiding  elder  shall  commit  the  charge  of  the  books  to  another." 

What  more  distinct  agency  could  be  established  1  What  more  distinct  services 
called  for  1  What  stronger  and  more  conscientious  accountability  upon  a  mortal 
man  than  is  by  this  system  established  upon  all  the  preachers  1 

"  The  superintendent  of  the  book  business  may,  from  time  to  time,  supply  the 
preachers  with  books  in  those  circuits  which  are  adjacent  or  convenient  to  Philadel- 
phia, and  settle  for  them  with  the  same  ;  in  such  cases  the  regulations  respecting  the 
presiding  elders  are  not  to  apply." 

That  is,  in  the  districts  adjacent  to  Philadelphia,  you  need  not  go  through  the  for- 
mality of  receiving  the  books  from  the  presiding  elder,  but  the  superintendent  may 
supply  you  directly.  Then  again  : — 

"  Every  annual  conference  shall  appoint  a  committee  or  committees,  to  examine 
the  accounts  of  the  presiding  elders,  preachers,  and  book-stewards,  in  their  respective 
districts  or  circuits.  Every  presiding  elder,  minister,  and  preacher,  shall  do  every- 
thing in  their  power  to  recover  all  debts  due  to  the  Concern,  and  also  all  the  books 
belonging  to  the  Concern,  which  may  remain  in  the  hands  of  any  person  within  their 
districts  or  circuits.  If  any  preacher  or  member  be  indebted  to  the  Book  Concern, 
and  refuse  to  make  payment,  or  to  come  to  a  just  settlement,  let  him  be  dealt  with 
for  a  breach  of  trust,  and  such  effectual  measures  be  adopted  for  the  recovery  of 


155 

such  debts,  as .  shall  be  agreeable  to  the  direction  of  the  annual  conferences  re- 
spectively. 

"  There  shal1  be  no  drafts  made  upon  the  Book  Concern  till  its  debts  are  dis- 
charged, and  a  sufficient  capital  provided  for  carrying  on  the  business  ;  after  which, 
the  profits  arising  from  the  books  shall  be  regularly  paid  to  the  Chartered  Fund,  and 
be  applied,  with  the  annual  income  of  the  funded  stock,  to  the  support  of  the  distress- 
ed travelling  preachers  and  their  families,  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preachers,"  &c. 

There  was  the  foundation  of  this  fund.  And  I  ask  if  ever  a  fund  exhibited,  under 
the  name  of  a  charity,  so  much  of  the  aspect  of  the  accumulations  of  a  partnership  ; 
and  if  there  ever  was  a  fund  which  provided  so  equitably  and  justly  a  retiring  pen- 
sion for  these  men,  who,  for  a  trifling  yearly  salary,  not  enough  to  pay  for  a  fashion- 
able dinner,  served  year  after  year  in  the  wilderness,  and  spent  their  best  days  in 
toil  1  Have  they  not  a  right,  above  the  ordinary  beggar  of  alms,  to  a  fund  growing 
out  of  their  own  exertions  1  We  are  to  look  at  this  matter  in  all  its  aspects.  When 
we  look  at  the  administration  of  this  fund,  to  see  how  it  is  to  be  dealt  with,  your 
Honours  must  not  lose  sight  of  the  character  and  the  services  of  the  persons  by 
whom  it  was  established.  You  see  that  the  character  of  this  fund  is  thus  impressed 
upon  it  by  its  establishment ;  and  nothing,  it  seems  to  me,  can  be  clearer  than  that  it 
was  intended  to  create  a  fund,  so  far  as  was  practicable,  for  the  first  great  object  of 
enlightening  this  Methodist  community  as  to  religious  truth,  as  to  their  morals,  and 
as  to  their  habits  of  life  ;  and  that  the  second  great  object  was,  that  when  this  insti- 
tution should  be  carried  out,  the  preachers  themselves  might  have  some  little  stimu- 
lus for  activity,  and  that  they  should  be  entitled  to  look  for  an  absolute  support  from 
this  fund  for  the  wants  of  old  age,  and  the  wants  of  their  dependents,  and  the  wants 
of  their  poor  and  suffering  brethren.  This  was  first  given  to  the  "  Chartered  Fund." 
That  "  Chartered  Fund  "  it  is  not  necessary  to  notice  further  than  to  say,  that  it  was 
an  incorporation  for  the  mere  purpose  that  is  expressed — the  support  of  distressed 
travelling  preachers  and  their  families. 

The  next  thing  in  the  history  of  this  fund  is  in  the  Conference  of  1804 — the  last 
General  Conference  before  they  became  delegated  bodies.  There  was  then  this 
variation,  that  instead  of  being  paid  to  the  Chartered  Fund,  it  was  to  be  administered 
through  the  annual  conferences.  The  Conference  of  1804  provided  that, 

"  The  profits  arising  from  the  Book  Concern,  after  a  sufficient  capital  to  carry  on 
the  business  is  retained,  shall  be  regularly  applied  to  the  support  of  the  distressed 
travelling  preachers  and  their  families,  the  widows  and  orphans  of  preachers,  &c. 
The  general  book-steward  shall  every  year  send  forward  to  each  annual  conference 
an  account  of  the  dividend  which  the  several  annual  conferences  may  draw  that 
year ;  and  each  conference  may  draw  for  their  proportionate  part,  on  any  person  who 
has  book-money  in  hand,  and  the  drafts,  with  the  receipt  of  the  conference  thereon, 
shall  be  sent  to  the  general  book-steward,  and  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  person 
who  paid  the  same.  But  each  annual  conference  is  authorized,  at  all  events,  to  draw 
on  the  general  book-steward  for  $100." 

This  continues  to  be  the  establishment  of  this  fund  up  to  the  present  tune.  There 
has  been  no  change  as  to  this.  It  is  yet  paid  to  the  annual  conferences,  and  by  them 
distributed. 

Before  I  make  any  further  remarks  on  this,  I  beg  to  call  your  Honours'  attention 
to  the  allowance  made  to  the  preachers  of  this  communion  during  all  this  period.  I 
say,  "  during  all  this  period  ;"  for  though  I  quote  the  amount  from  the  Discipline  of 
1840,  you  will  see  that  it  never  could  have  been  much  less.  On  page  29  of  Book 
No.  1,  I  read,— 

"  Of  the  allowances  to  the  ministers  and  preachers,  and  to  their  wives,  leidows,  and 

children. 

"  The  annual  allowance  of  the  married  travelling,  supernumerary  and  superannu- 
ated preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  8200,  and  their  travelling  expenses." 


156 

Two  hundred  dollars  is  the  entire  allowance  to  travelling  preachers,  if  they  are 
married  ;  it  was  the  entire  amount  allowed  these  gentlemen  who  were  travelling  in 
this  wilderness,  and  disseminating  Christianity.  And  if  they  were  bishops,  they  had 
the  same  allowance.  Then  we  have  another  class  of  persons, — 

"  The  annual  allowance  of  the  unmarried  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  superan- 
nuated preachers,  and  bishops,  shall  be  $100,  and  their  travelling  expenses. 

"Each  child  of  a  travelling  preacher  or  bishop  shall  be  allowed  $16  annually,  to 
the  age  of  seven  years,  and  $24  annually  from  the  age  of  seven  to  fourteen  years  ; 
and  those  preachers  whose  wives  are  dead  shall  be  allowed  for  each  child  annually  a 
sum  sufficient  to  pay  the  board  of  such  child  or  children  during  the  above  term  of 
years :  Nevertheless,  this  rule  shall  not  apply  to  the  children  of  preachers  whose 
families  are  provided  for  by  other  means  in  their  circuits  respectively. 

"  The  annual  allowance  of  the  widows  of  travelling,  superannuated,  worn-out,  and 
supernumerary  preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  $100. 

"  The  orphans  of  travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preach- 
ers, and  the  bishops,  shall  be  allowed  by  the  annual  conferences  the  same  sums  re- 
spectively which  are  allowed  to  the  children  of  living  preachers.  And  on  the  death 
of  a  preacher  leaving  a  child  or  children  without  so  much  of  worldly  goods  as  should 
be  necessary  to  his,  her,  or  their  support,  the  annual  conference  of  which  he  was  a 
member  shall  raise,  in  such  manner  as  may  be  deemed  best,  a  yearly  sum  for  the  sub- 
sistence and  education  of  such  orphan  child  or  children,  until  he,  she,  or  they,  shall 
have  arrived  at  fourteen  years  of  age.  The  amount  of  which  yearly  sum  shall  be 
fixed  by  a  committee  of  the  conference  at  each  session  in  advance." 

We  should  have  printed  in  Book  No.  1,  an  extract  from  the  Discipline  of  1840,  to 
show  how  the  fund  of  the  preachers  is  made  up.  I  find  on  pp.  170  and  171  of  the 
Discipline  of  1840, — 

"  The  more  effectually  to  raise  the  amount  necessary  to  meet  the  abovementioned 
allowance,  let  there  be  made  weekly  class  collections  in  all  our  societies,  where  it  is 
practicable." 

Now  this  was  a  very  peculiar  charitable  fund,  and  the  question  about  all  these 
funds  of  charity  is,  how  far  is  the  intention  of  the  founders  established  by  their  lan- 
guage, or  by  their  circumstances  taken  in  illustration  of  the  language  and  the  charac- 
ter of  the  fund,  at  its  original  establishment,  in  connexion  with  the  uses  to  which  it 
is  designed  to  be  applied.  I,  therefore,  remark,  concluding  upon  the  point  of  the 
peculiarities  of  this  fund,  it  was  a  profit  from  the  services  of  the  travelling  preachers, 
as  an  earned  profit  of  common  labour.  This  book  fund  was  nothing  but  a  profit  from 
this  bookselling,  and  this  bookselling  was  conducted  by  the  preachers.  The  books 
were  selected  and  supplied  by  the  preachers.  The  preachers  were  accountable  for 
the  debts  in  the  first  instance.  If  they  were  not  careful,  if  they  were  guilty  of  any 
neglect  of  duty,  they  stood  responsible  to  their  community  for  a  breach  of  trust. 

During  the  time  that  they  were  rendering  this  service  what  were  they  getting1? 
Two  hundred  dollars  a  year,  if  married,  to  support  themselves  and  their  wives.  Be- 
sides this  they  were  allowed  "  travelling  expenses,"  not  for  the  expenses  when  the 
travelling  was  terminated,  but  for  the  actual  travelling  expenses.  If  they  had  to  go 
from  New- York  to  Boston  the  expenses  on  the  journey  were  paid,  but  those  were  all 
that  were  included  under  "  travelling  expenses."  Upon  this  system  this  community 
lived,  and  flourished,  and  prospered.  Now,  was  there  anything  for  these  men  to  de- 
pend on  1  To  what  could  they  look  in  futurity — for  themselves  in  old  age,  for  their 
wives  when  they  became  too  old  to  labour,  for  their  children  in  their  infancy,  and  for 
their  widows  1  What  was  that  which  would  permit  a  man,  with  any  regard  to  his 
obligations  to  his  family,  to  go  into  this  missionary  service,  except  that  he  thought 
he  might  be  provided  for  by  a  miracle  1  It  was  this,  substantially  this,  fund ;  for 


157 

excepting  the  Chartered  Fund  growing  out  of  donations,  and  that  not  a  very  large 
one,  this  fund  was  the  only  hope  of  infancy  and  old  age,  and  the  only  means  of  the 
discharge  of  all  that  parental  duty,  and  that  duty  of  economy  which  every  man 
owes  to  himself  in  making  some  provision  for  the  future,  and  not  presumptuously 
tempting  Providence  to  supply  him  by  a  miracle.  That  is  the  character  of  this 
fund. 

When  you  come  to  dispose  of  it,  your  Honours  surely  are  not  going  to  take  it  like 
a  fund  for  the  propagation  of  certain  doctrines  where  the  slightest  deviation  from  the 
doctrine  will  forfeit  it.  If  it  were  a  question  of  that  kind,  I  am  sure  no  Court  could 
ever  sit  in  judgment  upon  this  subject  which  would  not  struggle  in  every  way  possi- 
ble, if  a  struggle  were  necessary,  which  would  not  consider  it  the  plainest  of  its 
duties,  to  see  that  there  should  be  no  forfeiture  of  such,  a  fund  without  the  gravest, 
and  clearest,  and  most  perfectly-established  breach  of  a  substantial  obligation ;  no 
breach  of  some  trifling  thing,  no  breach  of  a  thing  merely  technical  in  its  character 
would  be  permitted  to  forfeit  that  which  was  the  common  patrimony  of  the  old,  be- 
reaved, and  fatherless.  These  classes  of  persons  all  stand  together.  There  is  no 
provision  applicable  to  the  preachers,  superannuated  and  supernumerary,  different 
from  that  which  applies  to  the  widows  and  orphans.  And  if  the.  conference  is  out 
of  the  pale  of  this  Methodist  Church,  so  that  it  has  no  right  to  the  fund,  the  orphans 
and  widows  go  with  them.  That  is  the  doctrine  of  our  friends  on  the  other  side. 
It  comes  to  this ;  and  I  therefore  submit  to  your  Honours,  when  you  come  to  examine 
this  subject,  that  upon  this  question  of  forfeiture  my  learned  friends  must  make  the 
sun  shine  brightly.  It  must  be  a  noon-day  sun  which  will  enable  you  to  see  any  for- 
feiture by  which  the  rights  of  such  beneficiaries  to  the  fund  thus  established  shall 
ever  be  thought  of.  It  was  in  no  respect  a  mere  gratuitous  and  charitable  fund 
growing  out  of  donations  to  maintain  a  particular  faith  or  mode  of  ecclesiastical 
government.  It  was  a  retiring  pension,  or  savings'  bank,  for  the  supernumerary  and 
worn-out  preachers,  and  their  widows  and  orphans.  I  do  not  deny  that  a  connexion 
with  Methodism,  that  good  standing  in  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  was  probably 
an  implied  condition  in  the  establishment  of  this  fund.  I  say  an  implied  condition, 
because  it  is  not  expressed;  it  is  implied  from  the  fact  that  the  provision  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Church  speaks  of  these  superannuated  and  worn-out 
preachers  ;  but  it  is  merely  implied,  and  the  extent  and  degree  to  which  it  is  to  be 
implied  is  very  much  in  the  judgment  of  the  Court  taking  into  view  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  fund. 

Let  us  ask  ourselves,  if  any  of  these  men,  when  they  were  at  their  labours,  should 
have  had  it  put  to  them  :  "  Well,  my  friend,  by-and-by  you  will  become  feeble  and 
decrepit,  and  perhaps  you  may  go  to  a  Baptist  or  a  Presbyterian  Church,  do  you 
mean,  now,  that  if  you  do  that,  you  shall  have  no  share  in  this  fundl"  perhaps,  if 
he  was  a  very  zealous  man,  he  would  say,  "  Yes,  I  mean  that."  But  I  think  men  in 
general  would  say,  "  Well,  that  is  a  thing  which  I  did  not  think  of ;  I  do  not  know :  it 
would  be  very  hard,  in  my  old  age,  to  visit  my  infirmity  in  that  way."  My  learned 
friends  have,  on  this  subject,  it  seems  to  me,  a  heavy  task  to  make  out,  that  the  most 
strict,  and  perfect,  and  literal  conformity  to  everything  is  necessary  before  this  fund 
can  be  partaken  of  by  these  beneficiaries.  Certainly,  the  exact  conformity  could  not 
apply  to  widows  and  children.  The  establishment  of  this  fund  had  for  its  primary 
object,  (as  the  most  of  these  charitable  funds  have,)  the  spreading  of  religious  faith 
and  the  supplying  of  religious  instruction.  But  it  was  not  established  to  preach 
Methodism  after  a  dividend  had  accrued.  It  was  retroactive.  Its  benefits  were 
thrown  backward  ;  it  was  for  past  services  ;  the  benefits  lay  before  them  to  be  sure, 
but  the  services  out  of  which  they  became  entitled  to  them  were  behind,  and  the 


158 

contribution  every  year  was  not  for  the  services  of  the  preacher  who  preached  this 
year,  but  for  th«  services  last  year. 

Let  us  look  a  little  now  into  the  application  of  this  question  as  it  arises.  Here 
are  the  widows,  and  the  old  and  wom-out  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Church  of  the 
South  of  the  present  day.  This  fund  began  to  be  established  in  1800 — fifty  years 
ago.  It  seems  most  probable  that  a  vast  majority  of  all  those  who  can  now  partici- 
pate in  this  fund  are  the  very  persons  who  have  become  worn-out ;  that  is  to  say, 
taking  the  whole  Connexion  of  the  North  and  the  South,  the  supernumerary  and  su- 
perannuated preachers,  who  would  now  partake  of  the  fund,  are  the  men  who  were  at 
work  from  1800  to  1840,  or  1845,  and  who  became  superannuated  and  worn-out.  So 
you  will  see  what  a  sacred  trust  it  is,  what  a  sacred  charity,  if  it  is  to  be  called 
a  charity  ;  with  what  rights  those  come  whom  we  represent,  when  they  come  on  the 
ground  that  here  has  been  a  divided  dominion — when  the  question  has  been  put, 

" Under  what  Prince,  Bezonian  ?    Speak,  or  die," 

and  they  are  charged  to  have  made  an  unfortunate  answer.  I  am  sure,  when  you 
come  to  examine  this  subject,  you  cannot  examine  it  as  stoics.  You  cannot  do  it 
but  as  men,  Christian  men,  men  used  to  the  instruction  of  the  pulpit,  and  who  cannot 
but  admire  the  self-denial  of  those  who  have  gone  about  disseminating  Christianity 
among  the  poor  and  ignorant  of  this  country,  and  for  such  a  paltry  consideration  in 
money. 

I  submit  that  there  was  in  it  the  nature  of  a  common  property  of  earnings,  not  of 
gifts,  and  it  can  only  be  called  a  charity  by  reason  of  the  technical  manner  in  which 
it  is  to  be  administered. 

I  come  now  to  another  feature  of  this  plan.  That  which  is  relied  upon  to  forfeit  it 
from  our  beneficiaries,  is  the  act  of  the  annual  conferences  in  the  South.  Those 
conferences,  our  learned  friends  say,  have  done  that  which  made  them  seceders. 
Well,  what  had  they  to  do  with  this  fund  1  What  right  had  they  1  The  supernu- 
merary and  wom-out  preachers  belonged,  nominally,  to  those  conferences  ;  they  had 
a  right  to  be  present,  but  I  suppose,  in  point  of  fact,  that  those  who  were  too  old 
to  preach  would  not  very  extensively  mingle  in  those  warlike  acts  to  which  our 
friends,  in  the  report  of  1848,  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  which  I  understand  is  to  be 
referred  to,  allude.  Are  the  wives,  and  the  widows,  and  the  children,  to  be  affected 
by  the  action  of  the  annual  conferences  1  If  the  forfeiture  is  to  be  enforced  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  our  learned  friends,  then  it  attaches  not  to  the  absence  of  the 
Methodistical  character,  because  any  one  of  these  beneficiaries  may  be  as  orthodox 
as  can  be,  may  be  perfect  as  a  Methodist,  yet  if  the  annual  conference  has  gone  off 
h  is  forfeited.  Is  an  annual  conference  to  forfeit  it  when  it  has  no  more  right  to  the 
fund,  than  has  the  clerk  of  a  bank  to  the  money  which  passes  through  his  hands  1  It  is 
the  act  of  that  body  which  is  relied  upon  as  the  forfeiting  act.  I  shall  be  glad  to 
hear  the  argument  which  shall  establish  any  right  of  forfeiture  by  the  action  of  a  mere 
agent.  At  any  rate,  it  must  be  established  by  something  exceedingly  clear,  because 
it  certainly  is  a  thing  the  most  revolting  in  the  world,  not  only  to  every  legal,  but  to 
every  common  idea  of  justice.  A  man  can  hardly  begin  to  apprehend  what  justice  is, 
and  not  see  that  such  a  thing  as  this  would  be  most  grossly  unjust.  It  would  be  equal 
to  the  laws  of  Draco,  excepting  that  instead  of  dealing  in  blood  it  dealt  in  starvation. 

One  other  proposition  on  the  subject  of  this  fund  to  show  how  sacredly  it  was  re- 
garded by  this  Church  itself.  I  say  it  was  distributed  by  the  annual  conferences,  but 
belonged  in  actual  right  to  the  beneficiaries,  and,  as  such,  was  and  is  protected  by 
the  sixth  restrictive  rule.  This  is  the  second  point  which  I  have  submitted  to  your 
Honours.  A  word  now  as  to  the  general  character  of  these  rules,  which  I  shall 


159 

afterwards  more  particularly  examine.  They  are  on  pp.  28  and  29  of  Book  No.  1. 
The  General  Conference,  prior  to  the  establishment  of  these  restrictive  rules,  con- 
sisted of  all  the  Methodist  preachers,  who,  instead  of  meeting  in  annual  conferences, 
met  in  the  General  Conference.  Their  power  was  unlimited.  But  when  they  came 
to  act  by  delegations,  the  power,  as  we  contend,  remained  equally  unlimited,  except 
as  it  was  restricted  by  the  restrictive  articles.  When  they  came  to  put  these  rules  in, 
the  Court  will  notice  in  what  connexion  they  put  in  this  provision  for  retiring  preachers 
and  their  families.  They  provide  in  the  sixth  rule  the  following  : — 

"  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Char- 
tered Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernume- 
rary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

This  is  put  as  a  restriction,  and  it  is  the  only  money  restriction  in  these  articles. 
As  to  all  matters  of  finance  and  of  money,  the  General  Conference  can  do  every- 
thing except  in  this  single  particular.  They  put  this  restriction  alongside  of  the 
articles  of  religion.  They  put  it  alongside  of  their  episcopacy.  They  put  it  along- 
side of  the  general  rules  of  their  United  Societies  which  form  their  Church.  They 
put  it  alongside  of  the  trial  of  preachers  and  members.  They  invested  it,  indeed, 
with  the  most  sacred  sanctions.  They  do  not  say  anything  about  being  in  connexion 
with  the  society,  or  continuing  in  it.  All  that  can  be  said  on  the  subject  is,  that 
it  is  implied,  from  the  rule  being  a  rule  of  this  Church,  that  it  applies  to  persons  who 
hold  the  relations  of  preachers  to  the  Church.  And  in  what  relation  of  preachers  to 
the  Church  1  Preachers  who  are  to  be  deprived  of  everything  when  any  change  or 
difficulty  may  occur  hi  the  working  of  so  extensive  a  system  as  this,  whereby  a  man 
may  remain  a  most  perfect  Methodist,  and  yet  change  his  allegiance  1  For  instance, 
if  instead  of  our  taking  Texas,  Texas  had  taken  Mississippi,  and  it  had  been  a  con- 
quered country,  and  conferences  had  been  forbidden,  so  that  the  Church  could  not  be 
held  in  that  country,  would  it  be  held  that,  in  such  a  case  as  that,  entirely  unforeseen, 
and  not  expressly  provided  for,  a  Methodist  preacher  who  still  lived  in  the  conquered 
country,  with  his  wife  and  children,  was  cut  off  from  a  participation  in  this  fund, 
because  Methodism  in  his  country  had  become  extinct  1 

When  your  Honours  come  to  carry  out  this  charity,  you  will  be  glad  to  be  guided 
through  all  its  difficulties,  if  they  are  difficulties,  by  the  consideration  of  the  great 
equity,  the  great  humanity,  and  the  great  justice  which  pertains  to  the  original 
institution  of  this  fund.  This  Church,  in  this  most  simple  way,  provides  this  fund 
"  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out 
preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children."  That  is  the  trust.  It  is  not  con- 
nected, except  impliedly,  with  the  ecclesiastical  connexion  ;  and  the  extent  to  which 
it  is  to  be  thus  connected,  is  a  matter  which  will  be  afterwards  discussed.  But 
what  I  mean  to  say,  and  rely  upon  as  having  established,  I  am  sure  in  your  hearts, 
and  I  trust  hi  your  judgments,  is,  that  that  which  is  to  defeat  this  claim,  and  that 
which  is,  hi  the  language  of  the  answer,  to  forfeit  it,  is  not  to  be  any  technical 
departure  from  one  or  another  mode  of  government.  It  must  apply  to  the  sub- 
stantial elements  and  quality  of  Methodists,  as  men  of  faith  and  practice,  conforming 
to  the  faith  and  practice,  to  the  substantial  elements  of  the  Methodist  faith  rather  than 
to  the  mere  elements  of  a  particular  shape  of  a  hierarchy.  In  this  aspect  of  the  case 
— in  the  aspect  in  which  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  claim  it  as  a  forfeiture — it 
is  emphatically  an  Indian  war.  It  does  not  spare  the  old  man.  It  does  not  spare 
the  wife,  nor  the  widow,  nor  the  orphan.  It  scalps  every  one.  But  it  is  an  Indian 
warfare,  not  in  their  intentions.  I  am  very  sure  that  the  gentlemen,  even  the  most 
heated  of  the  partisans  in  this  warfare,  would  never  carry  this  principle  out  if  they 


160 

had  seen  the  extent  to  which  the  doctrine  necessarily  led.  I  absolve  them,  from  all 
my  heart,  from  any  such  thought.  Nothing  in  the  history  of  this  society  shows  that 
they  would  ever  have  thought  of  or  done  such  a  thing  ;  and  if  the  necessary  conse- 
quence is,  that  it  is  to  be  an  Indian  warfare,  nothing  more  need  be  said  to  estab- 
lish the  fact,  that  it  was  not  originally  intended.  For  I  venture  to  say,  it  is  not  in- 
tended by  the  most  heated  men  of  the  present  day,  that  that  should  be  the  operation 
of  what  they  claim  to  be  the  system  of  forfeiture  which  they  would  apply  to  it. 

One  other  word  upon  this  part  of  the  case.  In  illustrating  a  little,  in  anticipation 
of  an  argument  which  I  shall  presently  lay  before  you,  I  would  now  explain  that 
they  do  not  set  up  any  deviation  of  faith  on  our  part,  or  any  deviation  of  discipline. 
All  they  set  up  is,  that  we  are  not  in  harmony  with  their  General  Conference,  and 
that  they  are  the  real,  true  General  Conference.  Now  I  suppose  no  Methodist  will 
deny,  that  it  is  essential  that  the  preachers  should  be  in  connexion  with  an  annual 
conference  as  with  a  General  Conference.  I  find  in  the  Methodist  Book  of  Disci- 
pline that  the  annual  conference  is  as  necessary  a  body  as  the  General  Conference  ; 
nay,  four  times  as  essential.  It  is  the  primary  body,  and  the  power  of  the  General 
Conference  is  only  the  powers  of  the  annual  conferences  assembled  together.  What 
shall  we  say  of  all  the  Southern  country,  where,  according  to  the  learned  gentlemen 
on  the  other  side,  there  is  not  a  single  man,  woman,  or  child,  in  connexion  with  an 
annual  conference  as  they  put  it ;  because  they  say  these  annual  conferences  are  not 
annual  conferences.  Certainly,  it  is  a  most  extinguishing  doctrine.  Suppose  we 
had  every  heart  and  desire  to  continue  with  the  annual  conferences  ;  suppose,  instead 
of  there  being  an  almost  unanimous  vote  of  the  Southern  conferences  in  favour  of 
division,  there  had  been  close  majorities,  then  the  minorities  of  every  conference 
overruled  by  the  majorities,  according  to  my  learned  friends,  must  form  a  seceding 
conference,  or  they  would  have  no  right  to  the  fund.  Now,  can  it  be  that  that  was 
in  the  contemplation  of  those  who  established  this  fund,  or  shall  it  be  in  the  contem- 
plation of  those  who  take  it  up  in  a  new  and  unforeseen  case,  and  undertake  to  say 
what  would  have  been  the  decision  of  those  who  established  it,  if  they  had  foreseen 
the  case  1  Can  it  be  that  those  are  to  be  excluded  who  are  in  connexion  with  the  annual 
conferences  1  Here  are  annual  conferences  adopting  every  principle  of  Methodism  ; 
th«  primary  governing  bodies  of  the  Methodist  Church.  These  people  are  in  firm,  and 
in  close  connexion  with  them,  but  merely  differing  from  a  certain  number  of  those 
who  represent  the  other  conferences  in  a  General  Conference.  Can  you  conceive 
of  a  slighter  ground  of  forfeiture  than  that  1  That  is  what  is  set  up  in  the  answer. 
They  do  not  say  that  we  make  ourselves  unworthy  recipients  of  this  charity  ;  it  is, 
that  admitting  us  to  have  rights,  we  forfeit  them,  and  that  the  forfeiture  is  by  reason  of 
our  remaining  in  connexion  with  the  primary  governing  bodies,  submitting  to  the  Disci- 
pline, adopting  the  doctrines,  and  conforming  to  the  practices  and  usages  in  every 
respect,  but  that  our  conferences  think  it  necessary,  for  the  harmonious  action  of  the 
Methodist  Church,  for  its  action  as  a  Christian  body  giving  light  in  the  Southern 
country,  that  they  should  act  separately  ;  and  that  that  act  of  independence  is  a 
schism,  a  secession,  and  such  a  departure  from  faith  and  doctrine,  as  to  strip  even 
the  widows  and  children  of  a  provision  made  for  them  by  their  husbands  and 
fathers  in  their  better  days.  I  cannot  conceive  that  such  a  doctrine  can  be 
established. 

This  being  the  character  of  the  fund,  I  now  propose  to  inquire  into  the  grounds  on 
which  the  defence  say  it  has  been  forfeited.  The  first  ground  they  set  up  is,  that 
the  General  Conference  had  no  power  to  sanction  a  division.  They  say,  that  sup- 
posing the  General  Conference  had  undertaken  in  the  most  explicit  way  to  sanction  a 
separation  they  never  had  any  power  to  do  it.  In  the  second  place,  they  say  that  this 


161 

grant  of  the  power  of  separation  as  actually  assented  to,  was  contingent  upon  the 
experiment  being  made  in  the  Southern  Churches  of  whether  they  could  be  ruine'd 
first  and  repaired  afterwards,  or  whether  they  should  prevent  the  ruin  and  go  on  with- 
out it.  They  say  :  "  You  should  have  gone  on  and  experimented,  to  see  whether  you 
would  have  been  ruined  ;  because  you  should  not  go  to  this  until  you  were  nearly 
ruined."  That  is  the  second  ground  of  forfeiture — not  stated,  to  be  sure,  in  that  form, 
but  such  is  the  substance  of  it.  They  say  :  "  You  should  have  tried  an  experiment ; 
and  not  having  experimented,  you  have  not  taken  the  proper  means  of  carrying  out 
your  grant,  supposing  that  the  General  Conference  had  a  right  to  make  it."  The 
third  ground  is,  that  we  violated  the  borders  as  laid  down  in  that  Plan  of  Separation. 
And  the  other  ground  is,  that  it  was  all  conditioned  on  the  passage,  by  the  annual 
conferences,  by  the  requisite  vote,  of  an  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article. 
In  other  words,  it  comes  to  one  of  these  two  propositions  :  First,  they  say  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  could  not  grant  it ;  and  secondly,  if  they  could  and  did  grant  it. 
it  was  conditional,  and  the  condition  has  not  occurred  or  has  been  broken.  I  pro- 
pose to  examine  these  several  questions  hi  detail.  I  have  discussed  my  third  and 
fourth  points — that  the  title  of  the  beneficiaries  at  the  time  immediately  before  the 
separation  of  the  Church  into  two  parts  was  perfect,  and  it  cannot  be  defeated  or 
forfeited  without  a  clear  proof  of  breach  of  condition  by  the  beneficiaries.  And  even 
if  a  breach  of  condition  by  the  annual  conferences,  by  whom  the  fund  was  to  be 
distributed,  could  forfeit,  there  has  been  no  forfeiture  ;  because  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  1844  had  the  power  to  consent  to  an  amicable  division  of  the  conferences  on 
grave  causes  touching  the  general  efficiency  of  the  Church. 

The  question  presented  here  is  entirely  uncovered,  so  far  as  my  inquiries  have  ex- 
tended, by  any  precedent ;  nor  have  I  seen  any  principle  laid  down  by  any  writer  on 
the  subject  which  covers  it,  except  in  one  case  in  Kentucky,  to  which  reference  will 
hereafter  be  made.  The  question  that  I  shall  first  discuss,  must  be  disembarrassed 
of  all  those  questions  of  whether  they  did  it  on  condition  or  not,  or  whether  the  con- 
dition has  been  complied  with  or  not.  I  first  wish  to  discuss  the  question  of  whe- 
ther, suppose  they  had  in  express  terms  enacted,  "  Be  it  resolved,  by  this  General 
Conference,  that  the  slaveholding  conferences  (naming  them)  and  the  Northern 
conferences  (naming  them)  shall  hereafter  hold  their  sessions  separate,  and  they 
shall  be  the  General  Conferences  of  the  Methodist  Church  called  for  in  the  Disci- 
pline, and  applying  to  the  extent  of  country  in  which  these  annual  conferences  have 
jurisdiction,"  it  would  have  been  binding.  That  is  the  first  plain  proposition  into, 
which  this  subject  is  to  be  distributed,  and  which  must  be  examined. 

I  remark,  hi  the  first  place,  that  this  case  is  unprecedented,  because  here  is  no 
dispute  at  all  as  to  doctrines.  It  is  not  set  up  hi  the  answer  that  we  are  heterodox 
by  the  shade  of  a  hair.  It  is  not  set  up  that  we  have  violated  even  the  least  rule 
about  dress.  There  is  no  sort  of  pretence  of  any  deviation  in  doctrine,  nor  anything 
in  morals,  in  practice,  or  in  Methodist  usages.  We  have  adopted  their  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline, word  for  word,  except  where  alterations  are  called  for  by  the  mere  change 
of  the  meeting  of  the  General  Conference,  our  meeting  being  of  thirteen  annual  confer- 
ences ;  then-  Discipline  has  nothing  about  that.  In  every  other  case  that  has  occurred 
in  this  branch  of  the  law,  there  has  been  a  claim  that  there  was  a  departure  in  doc- 
trines, and  the  Courts  have  always  said,  that  although  at  law  we  only  look  to  the 
regularity  of  the  organization  and  succession,  yet  in  equity,  let  the  organization  be 
ever  so  regular,  let  the  succession  be  ever  so  regular,  if  there  be  a  deviation  in  doc- 
trine it  is  a  misapplication  of  the  trust,  if  it  be  held  for  the  diffusion  of  that  doctrine. 
But  here  the  case  is  disembarrassed  of  any  such  consideration.  There  is  no  deviation 
in  morals  or  doctrines ;  in  rites,  ceremonies,  or  usages.  They  have  classes  ;  so 


162 

have  we.  They  have  circuits  ;  so  have  we.  They  have  elders;  so  have  we.  They 
have  travelling  preachers  who  travel  all  around  ;  so  have  we.  They  have  bishops  ; 
so  have  we.  They  elect  their  bishops ;  so  do  we.  We  institute  bishops  by  the 
same  form  of  service  as  they  do.  In  everything  we  are  alike.  They  are  governed 
by  a  General  Conference  ;  so  are  we.  Our  General  Conference  have  the  same 
powers  as  theirs, — they  have  no  more  power  than  they  had  before  the  separation. 

You  now  see  how  peculiar  this  case  is.  It  is  a  mere  question  as  to  the  right  of 
these  two  bodies,  while  one,  to  divide  and  govern  themselves  by  a  duality  instead 
of  a  unity.  If  that  is  a  thing  which  forfeits  every  right  depending  on  this  matter,  it 
would  not  come  up  upon  one  side  of  this  question  merely.  Both  sides  would 
forfeit ;  that  is  to  say,  the  Northern  Methodist  Church  would  have  no  more  right 
to  this  book  fund  than  the  Southern  Methodist  Church.  So  long  as  there  was  a 
Northern  and  Southern  Methodist  who  stood  opposed  to  this  division,  they  two  would 
form  a  whole  Church,  and  all  other  Northern  and  Southern  men  would  stand  ex- 
cluded ;  because  the  doctrine  which  I  am  now  considering,  and  which  my  friends 
must  either  abandon,  or  adopt  in  the  strongest  manner,  is,  that  the  Conference  had 
not  the  power  to  consent  to  a  division  of  it  into  two  bodies.  If  it  had  not,  is  the 
party  who  gave  the  consent  any  better  off  than  the  party  who  took  it  1  Was  it 
one  body  who  gave  the  consent  and  another  who  took  it  7  No,  it  was  the  same  body 
who  gave  it,  and  the  two  parts  of  the  body  who  took  it ;  and  the  fund  would  stand 
without  an  owner,  unless  it  should  be  some  stray,  worn-out  preacher,  who  had  not 
voice  enough  to  give  any  dissent,  but  who  had  sense  enough  to  employ  counsel  and 
claim  the  whole  fund.  If  the  General  Conference  had  not  the  power,  that  would 
be  the  result. 

Again :  here  is  no  dispute  as  to  the  supreme  ecclesiastical  body  to  which  sub- 
mission is  due.  In  all  these  disputes  which  have  heretofore  arisen  in  this  country, 
it  has  been  as  to  adherence  to  this  General  Assembly  or  that  General  Assembly 
which  claims  to  be  the  only  one,  and  by  its  mode  of  succession  establishes  the  right 
to  be  the  only  one.  This  is  not  a  claim  of  that  sort.  It  is  a  claim  of  this  sort : 
the  parties  consent  that  the  general  body  should  act  in  two  parts,  and  each  part  be 
governed  by  its  own  general  body.  But,  according  to  the  argument  of  our  friends 
there  is  no  General  Conference,  and  there  could  be  none  after  the  act  of  1844 ;  there 
could  be  none  in  the  sense  of  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church.  The  Con- 
ference had  consented  that  the  Southern  conferences  should  no  longer  be  represented 
in  that  General  Conference.  I  am  now  considering  the  question  apart  from  the 
conditions,  supposing  the  consent  to  be  a  clear  one.  We  are  now  on  the  question 
of  the  power.  They  having  consented  that  the  Southern  conferences  should  not 
send  their  delegates  to  the  General  Conference,  and  the  Northern  conferences  should 
send  up  their  delegates  to  the  Northern  Conference  at  a  particular  place,  I  submit 
that,  if  their  doctrine  is  true,  the  Methodist  Church  is  literally  cut  in  two  and  dead — 
there  is  no  General  Conference.  If  they  deny  the  power  of  the  General  Conference 
to  grant  a  separation,  then  there  never  was  a  General  Conference  after  that  of  1844, 
and  there  is  an  end  of  this  question  ;  because  the  general  body,  to  whom  the  subor- 
dinate bodies  are  supposed  to  owe  allegiance,  being  destroyed — the  king  being  dead, 
there  is  no  treason  to  that  king — there  is  no  government.  It  is  another  question, 
and  it  is  a  question  which  I  think  our  learned  friends  will  say  does  not  arise  here, 
because  I  am  sure  they  cannot  meet  it. 

Again :  I  submit  that  this  is  not  the  case  of  a  hostile  separation ;  and  notwith- 
standing the  warmth  exhibited  in  the  Convention  of  1844,  they  took  the  wise  part, 
of  which  Scripture  gives  a  most  eminent  illustration,  when  Abraham  and  Lot  sepa- 
rated, that,  as  they  could  not  agree  when  together,  they  might  agree  when  separated. 

11* 


163 

They  adopted  that  principle  ;  and  although  it  had  been  preceded  by  heats,  although 
the  acts  which  were  done  were,  to  the  manifest  observation  of  every  observer,  such 
as  would  establish  separation,  not  lead  to  it — such  as  to  render  the  co-operation  of  the 
two  parts  of  the  body  any  longer  perfectly  hopeless — they  parted  in  good-will.  They 
shook  hands  when  they  separated  ;  they  spoke  in  terms  of  affection  on  both  sides. 
I  am  very  glad  to  be  corrected  by  my  learned  friend,  as  to  an  error  into  which  I  had 
fallen,  in  the  Conference  of  1844  not  having  excluded  Bishop  Andrew  from  the 
consecration  of  the  other  bishops.  If  you  will  look  at  the  debates  and  closing  acts 
of  that  Conference,  you  will  find  that  the  idea  of  both  parties  was,  that  they  should 
no  longer  be  tied  together  in  this  struggling  relation  ;  but  should  be  permitted  to  go 
off  untramelled,  each  with  their  own  particular  views,  to  do  good  in  their  own  way, 
and  among  their  own  people.  This  feeling  harmonized  the  termination  of  that  Con- 
ference. This,  therefore,  is  not  the  case  of  a  hostile  separation ;  and  in  that  respect 
I  am  happy  to  say,  that  whatever  took  place  afterwards  through  mischiefs,  which  I 
think  grew  out  of  the  press,  the  Conference  when  it  separated,  when  it  agreed  to 
this  division,  did  it  harmoniously,  did  it  kindly,  and  in  the  expectation  of  a  kind 
communion  afterwards. 

I  submit  that  this  General  Conference  had  the  power  to  consent,  from  the  very 
constitution  of  it.  Originally  there  was  only  one  conference,  and  that  was  an- 
nual. When  that  came  to  be  divided  into  several  annual  conferences,  they  yet  all 
met  together  ;  and  in  1792,  I  think  it  was,  for  the  first  time  they  determined  to  meet 
every  four  years.  But  all  the  preachers  who  formed  the  annual  conferences,  met  in 
General  Conference.  I  think  it  will  not  be  denied  that  in  1792,  or  in  1800,  or  in 
1804,  this  body  had  a  right  to  divide  itself.  They  were  all  there.  To  say  they  had 
not  a  right  to  divide,  would  be  to  say  that  men  whose  connexion  grew,  in  fact,  out  of 
meeting  together,  had  no  right  to  meet  otherwise.  I  do  not  suppose  it  can  be  con- 
tended, with  any  force  of  argument,  that  the  General  Conference  before  they  came 
to  be  a  delegated  body,  could  not  have  divided  themselves,  for  grave  reasons  of  con- 
venience, into  two.  For  instance  :  if  there  had  not  been  the  present  great  facilities 
for  travelling,  they  might  have  established  a  conference  on  the  eastern,  and  another 
on  the  western  side  of  the  mountains.  The  mere  difficulty  of  communication  would 
have  been  a  sufficient  reason,  and  would  have  justified  it ;  and  every  Court,  and  every 
man  of  sense  would  have  said  that  it  was  a  proper,  prudent,  and  reasonable  thing 
that  the  power  of  the  Church,  in  such  a  case,  should  be  exercised  in  a  double  instead 
of  a  single  form,  or  a  divided  instead  of  a  single  meeting. 

In  1808  arose  a  new  system ;  it  was  of  acting  by  delegations,  and  by  peculiar 
delegations.  It  was  acting  rather  by  committees  than  by  delegations.  Instead  of  hav- 
ing fourteen  clergymen  come  to  a  General  Conference,  one  of  the  fourteen  was  selected 
to  carry  the  power  of  them  all ;  and  I  submit  to  your  Honours,  as  a  proposition  which  I 
am  sure  you  will  not  fail  to  adopt,  that  the  Conference  of  1808,  and  its  successors,  had  all 
the  powers  of  the  preyious  General  Conferences,  except  so  fa%as  they  were  limited  by 
the  restrictive  articles.  In  vain  will  you  look  into  this  Methodist  system  prior  to  1808, 
for  any  restrictions  on  the  General  Conference  of  that  Church.  If  that  body  had 
chosen  to  become  Socinian ;  if  it  had  chosen  to  adopt  the  Presbyterian  or  Baptist 
forms,  either  of  government  or  of  doctrine,  it  was  in  its  power  to  do  it.  There  was 
no  limit.  They  represented  the  Church  ;  they  were  the  Church.  The  Church  dis- 
persed its  light  from  the  preachers.  The  laity  were  not  known  in  the  governing 
body.  Matters  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  everything  were  in  the  governing  body. 
If  that  was  so  up  to  1808,  what  was  that  body  after  that  period  1  It  was  the  same 
General  Conference.  Before,  it  is  probable  that  preachers  from  the  more  distant 
parts  could  not  attend  as  well  as  those  who  lived  near  the  place  where  the  sessions 


164 

were  held,  and  that  those  who  lived  nearer  would  be  more  fully  present  than  those 
more  distant ;  and  yet  its  powers  were  the  same.  What  then  did  this  change  of  the 
system  in  1808  effect1!  Why,  it  left  the  body  with  the  same  powers  it  had  before, 
only  that  it  prevented  that  inequality,  and  put  specific  limitations  upon  it.  I  submit 
that  the  Conference  of  1808,  and  all  which  succeeded  it,  were  invested  with  the  full 
powers  of  the  ecclesiastical  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  and  this 
is  unlike  any  other  Church,  because  its  historian  tells  us,  as  I  read  the  other  day,  that 
every  General  Conference  provides  a  Book  of  Discipline,  which  contained  the  arti- 
cles of  religion,  and  the  form  of  the  hierarchy  of  the  Church ;  and  all  its  rites  and 
ceremonies,  and  financial  and  other  arrangements,  were  superseded  by  the  new  Book 
of  Discipline,  sanctioned  by  the  new  Conference,  and  published  by  it.  This  is  put 
in  very  plain  and  intelligible  language  by  Mr.  Emory  in  his  History,  on  the  second 
page  of  our  first  book  of  the  Proofs  : — 

"  In  our  civil  governments,  the  statutes  are  scattered  through  the  several  volumes 
of  laws  which  have  been  published  from  time  to  time,  and  therefore  these  are  all  pre- 
served. But  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  Discipline,  as  revised  at  each 
General  Conference,  being  in  itself  complete,  supplants  all  that  had  gone  before  it, 
and  the  previous  edition*  are  cast  aside  as  of  no  further  use.  Thus  it  has  continued, 
until  now  nearly  sixty  years  have  elapsed  since  the  organization  of  the  Church,  and 
the  Discipline  has  undergone  about  twenty  distinct  revisions." 

Before  I  go  into  some  other  considerations,  growing  out  of  these  restrictive  articles, 
which  I  think  most  fully  establish  the  plenitude  of  the  power,  I  propose  to  consider 
historically  one  or  two  events,  to  show  that  my  proposition  is  correct. 

The  whole  American  Methodist  Episcopal  body  was  an  amicable  separation  from 
that  in  England,  and  this  separation  never  impeached  the  quality  of  any  Methodist 
preachers.  Our  civil  institutions  began  in  revolution.  Our  civil  government  was  a 
schism  of  the  most  grievous  kind  ;  one  of  those  schisms  that  warranted  an  Indian  war- 
fare, that  warranted  execution,  hanging,  bills  of  attainder,  everything  that  is  known 
in  revolutionary  warfare.  But  the  religious  separation  of  the  Methodists  was  the 
most  kindly,  peaceful,  and  regular  separation,  by  the  consent  of  the  body  of  which  it 
was  a  part,  so  that  from  that  day  to  the  present  they  have  been  in  such  harmony, 
that  the  preachers  of  one  part  of  it  are  received,  as  I  understand,  without  examination 
as  preachers  in  the  other.  Looking  at  the  origin  of  this  separation,  we  find  that  those 
who  separated  were  treated  as  being  in  perfectly  good  standing  with  their  brethren, 
not  only  in  England,  but  all  over  the  world.  I  read  from  page  3  of  our  book  : — 

"  The  close  of  the  year  1784  constituted  a  new  and  most  important  epoch  in 
American  Methodism.  The  independence  of  the  United  States  having  been  con- 
firmed by  the  peace  of  1783,  the  authority  of  England  over  them,  both  civil  and  eccle- 
siastical, came  to  an  end.  The  connexion  with  the  Church  of  England  being  thus 
providentially  dissolved,  Mr.  Wesley,  who  had  always  resisted  a  separation  from  it, 
took  measures,  on  the  application  of  the  American  societies,  to  organize  them  into  a 
Church.  In  explanation  of  his  views  and  wishes,  he  addressed  to  the  brethren  in 
America  the  following  letter." 

I  will  not  read  the  whole  of  the  letter,  but  a  paragraph  from  it  on  page  5  : — 

"  As  our  American  brethren  are  now  totally  disentangled,  both  from  the  state  and 
from  the  English  hierarchy,  we  dare  not  entangle  them  again  either  with  the  one  or 
the  other.  They  are  now  at  full  liberty  simply  to  follow  the  Scriptures  and  the 
primitive  Church.  And  we  judge  it  best  that  they  should  stand  fast  in  that  liberty 
wherewith  God  has  so  strangely  made  them  free." 

That  letter  was  written  Sept.  10,  1784.  It  probably  reached  this  country  in  the 
coarse  of  the  next  month.  I  read  on  page  6  of  our  book  the  following : — 


165 

"  To  carry  into  effect  the  proposed  organization,  a  General  Conference  of  preach- 
ers was  called,  to  meet  in  Baltimore,  at  Christmas,  1784.  Sixty  out  of  the  eighty- 
three  preachers  then  in  the  travelling  connexion,  attended  at  the  appointed  time. 
'  At  this  Conference,'  say  the  annual  minutes  for  1785,  '  it  was  unanimously  agreed 
that  the  circumstances  made  it  expedient  for  us  to  become  a  separate  body,  under 
the  denomination  of  " The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."'  And  again  they  say : 
'  We  formed  ourselves  into  an  independent  Church ;  and  following  the  counsel  of  Mr. 
John  Wesley,  who  recommended  the  episcopal  mode  of  Church  government,  we 
thought  it  best  to  become  an  episcopal  Church,  making  the  episcopal  office  elective, 
and  the  elected  superintendent  or  bishop  amenable  to  the  body  of  ministers  and 
preachers.'  They  adopted  a  form  of  Discipline  for  the  government  of  the  Church. 
This  was  substantially  the  same  with  the  Large  Minutes,  the  principal  alterations 
being  only  such  as  were  necessary  to  adapt  it  to  the  state  of  things  in  America." 

These  "  Large  Minutes"  were  Mr.  Wesley's  minutes.  I  will  read  from  the  Dis- 
cipline of  this  Conference,  (page  6 :) — 

"  Ques.  2.  What  can  be  done  in  order  to  the  future  union  of  Methodists  1 
"  Arts.  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his 
sons  in  the  Gospel,  ready,  in  matters  belonging  to  Church  government,  to  obey  his 
commands.  And  we  do  engage,  after  his  death,  to  do  everything  that  we  judge 
consistent  with  the  cause  of  religion  in  America,  and  the  political  interests  of  these 
States,  to  preserve  and  promote  our  union  with  the  Methodists  in  Europe." 

This  was  after  Mr.  Wesley's  letter,  and  after  the  dissolution  of  their  connexion 
with  the  European  Methodists.  Again,  (page  7 :) — 

"  Ques.  3.  As  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  affairs  of  these  United  States  have 
passed  through  a  very  considerable  change  by  the  Revolution,  what  plan  of  Church 
government  shall  we  hereafter  pursue  1 

"  Ans.  We  will  form  ourselves  into  an  episcopal  Church,  under  the  direction  of 
superintendents,  elders,  deacons,  and  helpers,  according  to  the  forms  of  ordination 
annexed  to  our  Liturgy,  and  the  form  of  Discipline  set  forth  in  these  minutes." 

The  Discipline  they  adopted  was  the  same  with  that  of  the  English.  Methodists. 
It  was  the  Large  Minutes  of  Wesley.  The  organization  was  the  same,  excepting 
that  Mr.  Wesley  was  not  here,  and  this  body  pledged  themselves  to  conform  during 
his  lifetime  to  his  commands,  and  after  his  death  to  what  should  be  consistent  with 
the  cause  of  religion,  and  the  preservation  and  promotion  of  union  with  the  English 
Methodists.  , 

Again  :  upon  this  subject  I  would  refer  to  what  took  place  in  1789,  which  will  be 
found  on  pp.  10  and  11,  which  I  will  not  read,  but  which,  I  trust,  will  receive  from 
your  Honours  the  attention  it  deserves.  I  shall  read  now  from  the  Discipline  of 
1840.  I  believe  it  was  not  read  in  the  course  of  the  reading  of  the  Proofs,  but  I 
think  it  material  on  this  subject — page  36,  chap,  i.,  sec.  8. 

Ore  Receiving  Preachers  from  the  Wesleyan  Connexion  and  other  Denominations. 

"  Ques.  1.  In  what  manner  shall  we  receive  those  ministers  who  may  come  to  us 
from  the  Wesleyan  connexion  in  Europe  or  Canada  1 

"  Ans.  If  they  come  to  us  properly  accredited  from  either  the  British,  Irish,  or 
Canada  Conference,  they  may  be  received  according  to  such  credentials,  provided 
they  give  satisfaction  to  an  annual  conference  of  their  willingness  to  conform  to  our 
Church  government  and  usages. 

"  Ques.  2.  How  shall  we  receive  those  ministers  who  may  offer  to  unite  with  us 
from  other  Christian  Churches! 

"  Ans.  Those  ministers  of  other  evangelical  Churches,  who  may  desire  to  unite 
with  our  Church,  whether  as  local  or  itinerant,  may  be  received  according  to  our 
usages,  on  condition  of  their  taking  upon  them  our  ordination  vows,  without  the  re- 
impoaition  of  hands,  giving  satisfaction  to  an  annual  conference  of  their  being  in  or- 


166 

ders,  and  of  their  agreement  with  us  in  doctrine,  discipline,  government,  and  usages  ; 
provided  the  conference  is  also  satisfied  with  their  gifts,  grace,  and  usefulness." 

After  the  separation  from  England,  and  after  the  separation  of  the  Canada  Metho- 
dists, when  their  ministers  came  to  the  Methodist  body  in  this  country  they  were  to 
be  received,  they  were  not  to  be  re-ordained,  there  was  to  be  no  re-imposition  of 
bands,  they  were  simply  to  declare  their  conformity,  or  their  willingness  to  conform, 
to  the  Church  government  in  this  country.  But  when  ministers  come  from  any  other 
denomination,  although  there  is  no  theological  re-ordination,  yet  there  is  a  most  com- 
plete act  of  re-institution  into  the  ministry  as  into  the  ministry  of  a  different  evan- 
gelical Church,  not  holding  the  orders  of  other  denominations  theologically  invalid, 
but  holding  that  this  was  a  necessary  change  into  another  Church  calling  for  all  those 
things  which  indicate  a  change  of  allegiance. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  this  country  separating  from  the  Metho- 
dists of  England,  peacefully  and  without  blame,  and  remaining  unimpeachable 
Methodists  in  every  sense,  the  address  of  the  British  Conference  and  the  answer  to  it, 
from  the  minutes  of  1840,  (pp.  64  and  65  of  Book  No.  I,)  are  very  material.  The 
whole  ckaracter  of  this  address  and  the  reply  to  it,  is  that  of  parts  of  the  same  body 
addressing  each  other.  The  reception  of  a  letter  so  plain  in  the  character  of  its  re- 
flections, and  the  kind  spirit  of  the  reply  to  it  made  by  the  Conference  of  1840,  show 
that  these  two  bodies  after  the  separation  did  not  treat  each  other  as  schismatical, 
as  being  on  the  one  side  seceders  and  on  the  other  the  genuine  body.  And  I  cannot 
but  call  your  Honours'  attention  to  the  passage  with  which  the  American  Methodist 
Conference  closes  its  reply  to  the  British  letter — a  sort  of  argumentum  ad  hominem — 
in  which  they  adopt  the  very  language  of  the  British  Conference  in  1833.  They 
quote  the  language  of  the  English  Methodist  Missionary  Society  in  their  instructions 
to  missionaries,  as  follows : — 

"  As  in  the  colonies  in  which  you  are  called  to  labour,  a  great  proportion  of  the 
inhabitants  are  in  a  state  of  slavery,  the  committee  most  strongly  call  to  your  remem- 
brance what  was  so  fully  stated  to  you  when  you  were  accepted  as  a  missionary  to 
the  West  Indies,  that  your  only  business  is  to  promote  the  moral  and  religious  im- 
provement of  the  slaves  to  whom  you  may  have  access,  without  in  the  least  degree, 
in  public  or  private,  interfering  with  their  civil  condition." 

I  now  submit  that  the  separation  of  the  Canada  Conference  from  the  American 
body  was  one  of  those  separations  which  were  not  schisms  npr  schismatical.  In  the 
short  examination  which  I  shall  give  this  subject,  and  yet  which  I  intend  to  be  a 
rather  full  one,  the  Court  will  please  to  understand  that  I  do  not  pretend  to  say  that 
some  of  the  gentlemen  who  took  part  in  that  did  not  consider  that,  before  a  conse- 
quence of  that  separation,  viz.  a  division  of  the  money,  could  take  place,  it  was  ne- 
cessary to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article.  Some  of  them  did  certainly  so  con- 
sider, and  they  agreed  to  sjubmit  to  the  annual  conferences  the  question,  whether  the 
money  should  be  divided.  They  decided  that  it  should  not  be  done.  Then  the 
General  Conference  almost  unanimously  voted,  that  instead  of  dividing  the  money  or 
the  capital,  they  would  reduce  the  price  of  books  furnished  to  the  Canada  Methodists 
so  that  no  profit  should  be  made  on  them  for  a  certain  period  of  years.  If  they  were 
thus  selling  the  books  to  seceders,  to  strangers,  they  were  committing  a  palpable 
breach  of  trust.  They  gave  to  the  Canada  Conference  seven  per  cent.,  for  sixteen 
years,  of  the  profits  of  the  Methodist  books  which  they  sold  to  them.  According  to 
the  position  of  our  friends  on  the  other  side,  they  had  no  more  right  to  give  this  much 
away  to  them  than  they  had  to  give  it  to  establish  a  billiard-room. 

Let  us  look  into  this  case.     My  object  in  referring  to  it  is  to  show  that  in  that 


167 

separation  the  Methodist  conferences  had  no  idea  that  there  was  a  schism  created, 
whatever  else  may  have  been  their  notions.  I  speak  respectfully  when  I  say  "  no- 
tions." By  notions,  I  mean  opinions  very  hastily  formed,  not  very  well  considered, 
and  as  I  believe,  (after  reading  the  documents,)  not  adopted  by  the  sounder  men 
among  them.  They  acted  upon  a  principle  of  concession,  and  finally  leaped  over  a 
difficulty  which  they  could  not  bridge.  They  did  wisely;  but  what  I  wish  to  show 
is,  that  in  that  matter  there  was  no  idea  entertained  that  there  was  any  secession  or 
schism.  The  history  of  this  is  to  be  found  from  page  32  to  page  52  of  our  book  of 
Proofs. 

Your  Honours  will  see  that  this  began  by  a  petition  in  1828.  The  Canada  Metho- 
dists— a  portion  of  the  Church  held  in  the  highest  esteem  and  respect — put  it  plainly 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  their  idea  that  the  General  Conference  could  consent  to  a 
separation ;  and  in  their  petition  they  gave  such  reasons  as  I  think  would  satisfy 
every  one  as  to  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  and  the  propriety  of  its  exer- 
cise. The  petition  begins,  (page  32  :) — 

"  Rev.  Fathers  and  Brethren, — The  Canada  Conference  having,  after  mature  de- 
liberation, deemed  a  separation  expedient,  most  humbly  pray  that  they  may  be  set 
off  a  separate  and  independent  Church  in  Canada." 

• 

If  there  had  been  any  idea  of  secession  and  schism  it  was  only  fpr  the  Canada 
Methodists  to  avow  it.  They  needed  no  petition,  no  consent  to  secede.  They 
might  on  the  ground  of  the  necessity  of  the  case,  of  then4  distance  from  the  place  of 
meeting,  have  seceded  and  justified  themselves,  standing  the  charge  of  schism. 
This  they  did  not  do  ;  but  they  went  at  once,  as  a  body  of  Methodists  of  character  and 
respectability,  and  declared  to  the  Methodist  General  Conference  that  the  latter  had 
the  power  to  sanction  a  separation  :  and  they  asked  for  a  separation.  They  then 
gave  the  reasons  for  separation  :  first,  political  relations  and  political  feelings  ;  next, 
the  local  circumstances  of  their  societies  ;  then,  the  religious  privileges  which  it  is 
probable  they  would  obtain  from  their  government  if  they  were  separated ;  then,  their 
wanting  a  bishop  who  should  act  exclusively  in  that  Province*.  This  was  presented 
in  view  of  the  fact,  that  in  the  war  of  1812,  still  in  fresh  recollection,  the  people  of 
the  conferences  were  found  in  arms  against  each  other,  and  it  was  impossible  for  a 
bishop  from  the  United  States  to  exercise  his  functions  in  Canada.  They  then  refer 
to  the  general  wish  of  the  people  in  Canada  for  a  separation.  These  are  the  things 
which  made  a  palpable  necessity  for  separation. 

They  would  not  certainly  ask  for  a  separation  if  they  did  not  suppose  the  Confer- 
ence had  the  power  to  grant  it.  Now  look  at  the  manner  of  the  petition.  They  say, 
(pp.  33,  34  :)— 

"  Your  petitioners,  likewise,  most  humbly  and  earnestly  solicit  that  the  General 
Conference  may  also  be  pleased, 

"  1st.  To  maintain  with  the  British  Conference,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  main 
principles  of  the  late  arrangements  with  regard  to  Canada. 

"  2d.  That  the  General  Conference  will  appoint  such  an  individual  for  a  superin- 
tendent of  our  societies  in  Canada,  as  may  be  nominated  by  the  delegates  of  the 
Canada  Conference. 

"  3d.  That  the  Church  in  Canada  may  be  embraced  in  the  general  and  friendly 
principle  recognised  by  the  two  Connexions, — '  The  Wesleyan  Methodists  are  the 
same  in  every  part  of  the  world.' " 

That  was  the  legend  which  was  the  "  E  Pluribus  Unum"  upon  the  flag  of  this 
society :  "  The  Wesleyan  Methodists  are  the  same  in  every  part  of  the  world." 
After  the  original  separation  from  the  Methodists  of  England,  it  was  adopted  ;  when 
the  Canada  separation  took  place,  they  presented  that  as  the  great  maxim.  It  is  as 


168 

much  as  to  say  :  "  Whether  we  are  separated  by  distinct  organization  or  not,  it  is  the 
same  body  ;  it  is  no  schism,  no  want  of  orthodoxy  in  any  respect.  The  petition 
add,  (p.  34,)— 

"  4th.  That  the  General  Conference  will,  together  with  an  independent  establish- 
ment, be  pleased  to  grant  your  petitioners  a  portion  of  the  Book  Concern,  of  the 
Chartered  Fund,  and  a  portion  of  the  fund  of  the  Missionary  Society." 

They  did  not  think  there  would  be  any  difficulty  in  having  their  part  of  the  fund 
granted,  because,  I  venture  to  say,  they  considered  that  the  least  of  all  difficulties 
would  be  a  money  difficulty.  And  yet  it  proved  the  greatest,  and  one  which,  more 
than  any  other  act  of  the  Methodist  bqdy,  exhibits  it  in  a  light  somewhat  equivocal 
in  regard  to  the  duties  of  its  own  discipline,  if  it  is  as  they  seem  to  suppose  it  be. 
Then  the  committee,  under  the  chairmanship  of  Dr.  Bangs,  to  which  this  matter  was 
referred  in  their  report,  (pp.  34,  35,)  say  : — 

"  The  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion,  that,  however  peculiar  may  be 
the  situation  of  our  brethren  in  Canada,  and  however  much  we  may  sympathize  with 
them  in  their  present  state  of  perplexity,  this  General  Conference  cannot  consistently 
grant  them  a  separate  Church  establishment,  according  to  the  prayer  of  the  peti- 
tioners. The  committee,  therefore,  recommend  to  the  General  Conference  the 
adoption  of  the  following  resolutions  : — 

"  1 .  That,  inasmuch  as  the  several  annual  conferences  have  not  recommended  it 
to  the  General  Conference,  it  is  unconstitutional,  and  also,  under  the  circumstances, 
inexpedient,  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  for  a  separate  Church  establishment 
in  Upper  Canada. 

"  2.  That  an  affectionate  circular  address  be  prepared  by  this  General  Conference, 
stating  the  reasons  why  their  request  cannot  be  granted,  and  expressing  the  unabated 
attachment  of  this  Conference  for  their  brethren  in  Canada,  and  their  earnest  desire 
for  their  continuance  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Church.  All  which  is  respectfully 
submitted.  (Signed)  N.  BANGS,  Chairman. 

"  Pittsburgh,  May  12,  1828." 

It  was  the  language  of  the  report  that  it  was  unconstitutional  to  grant  the  prayer 
of  the  petitioners,  inasmuch  as  the  annual  conferences  had  not  recommended  it. 
Your  Honours  will  see,  however,  that  the  separation  was  granted  by  the  almost  un- 
animous vote  of  this  body,  without  the  slightest  hesitation  and  without  the  recommen- 
dation of  the  annual  conferences.  On  pp.  35  and  36  I  find  : — 

"MAY  17. — Rev.  John  Ryerson,  one  of  the  delegates  from  the  Canada  Conference, 
offered  the  following  substitute  for  the  report  under  consideration  : — 

"  '  Whereas  the  Canada  Annual  Conference,  situated  in  the  Province  of  Upper 
Canada,  under  a  foreign  government,  have,  in  their  memorial,  presented  to  this  Con- 
ference the  disabilities  under  which  they  labour,  in  consequence  of  their  union  with 
a  foreign  ecclesiastical  government,  and  setting  forth  their  desire  to  be  set  off  as  a 
separate  Church  establishment  ;  and  whereas  this  General  Conference  disclaims  all 
right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  under  such  circumstances  except  by  mu- 
tual agreement ; 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  therefore,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General 
Conference  assembled,  that  the  compact  existing  between  the  Canada  Annual  Con- 
ference and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  be,  and  hereby  is, 
dissolved  by  mutual  consent. 

"  '  2.  That  our  superintendents  or  superintendent  be,  and  hereby  are,  respectfully 
advised  and  requested  to  ordain  such  person  as  may  be  elected  by  the  Canada  Con- 
ference as  superintendent  for  the  Canada  Connexion. 

"  '  3.  That  we  do  hereby  recommend  to  our  brethren  in  Canada  to  adopt  the  form 
of  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  with  such 
modifications  as  their  particular  relations  shall  render  necessary. 

"  '4.  That  we  do  hereby  express  to  our  Canada  brethren  our  sincere  desire  that 
the  most  friendly  feeling  may  exist  between  them  and  the  Connexion  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States. 


169 

" '  5.  That  the  claims  of  the  Canada  Conference  on  our  Book  Concern  and  Char- 
tered Fund,  and  any  other  claims  that  they  may  suppose  they  justly  have,  shall  be 
left  open  for  future  negotiations,  and  adjusted  between  the  two  Connexions. 

" '  G.  R.  JONES, 

"  '  May  17.  MOSES  GRUME.' 

"  The  question  on  the  first  resolution  was  decided  in  the  affirmative — 104  for,  and 
43  against  it." 

Thus  the  Court  will  see  that  the  first  resolution,  which  purported  to  dissolve  this 
connexion  between  the  conferences,  had  the  voice  of  104  for  it,  to  43  against  it. 

MR.  CHOATE, — The  gentleman  must  remember  that  that  vote  was  afterwards  re- 
considered. 

MR.  LORD, — I  will  give  the  history  of  that.  The  only  effect  of  the  reconsideration 
was  to  authorize  a  separation  without  this  first  resolution.  But  what  is  the  meaning 
of  this  first  vote  1  It  is  that  one  hundred  and  four  thought  this  was  constitutional, 
and  forty-three  thought  that  it  was  not.  Is  that  nothing  ?  Suppose  they  did  recon- 
sider it.  How  was  the  question  presented  ?  There  was  a  report  from  Dr.  Bangs,  that 
as  this  was  without  the  recommendation  of  the  annual  conferences  it  was  unconstitu- 
tional, and  a  Canada  gentleman,  apparently  a  stranger,  proposes  a  substitute  that  it  is 
constitutional,  and  one  hundred  and  four  vote- in  favour  of  the  substitute,  and  forty- 
three  doubt  the  constitutional  power.  Now,  how  idle  is  it  to  talk  about  reconsidera- 
tion upon  such  a  subject  as  this  !  There  might  be  a  reconsideration  on  the  subject  of 
expediency,  but  upon  the  question  of  constitutional  right,  let  gentlemen  explain  it  to 
me  in  consistency  with  the  fairness  and  maturity  of  the  men  who  gave  that  vote,  how 
can  it  be  that  one  hundred  and  four  deliberately  considered  it  both  constitutional  and 
expedient,  and  then  reconsidered  it,  unless  that  reconsideration  was  on  the  question 
of  expediency  and  not  of  constitutionality  1  When  they  gave  the  first  vote  they 
must  have  considered  it  both  constitutional  and  expedient,  and  when  they  recon- 
sided  it,  it  might  have  been  in  view  of  a  better  and  more  harmonious  plan,  or  it  might 
have  been  in  view  of  a  simple  question  of  expediency.  But  how  can  one  hundred  and 
four  have  voted  for  it,  if  they  did  not  suppose  it  was  constitutional  1  Then  the  record 
says  :  "  The  other  four  resolutions  were,  on  motion,  referred  to  a  special  committee, 
to  consist  of  five  members."  Those  four  resolutions  were  those  carrying  out  the  Plan 
of  Separation.  That  committee  reported  other  resolutions  which  formed  the  substitute 
eventually  adopted  in  place  of  that  first  resolution.  The  first  resolution  reported  by 
this  committee  was  : — 

"  If  the  Annual  Conference  in  Upper  Canada,  at  its  ensuing  session,  or  any  suc- 
ceeding session  previously  to  the  next  General  Conference,  shall  definitely  determine 
on  this  course,  and  elect  a  general  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  that  Province,  this  General  Conference  do  hereby  authorize  any  one  or  more  of 
the  general  superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
with  the  assistance  of  two  or  more  elders,  to  ordain  such  general  superintendent  for 
the  said  Church  in  Upper  Canada,  provided  always  that  nothing  herein  contained  be 
contrary  to,  or  inconsistent  with,  the  laws  existing  in  the  said  Province  ;  and  pro- 
vided that  no  such  general  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
Upper  Canada,  or  any  of  his  successors  in  office,  shall  at  any  time  exercise  any  ec- 
clesiastical jurisdiction  whatever  in  any  part  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  Territories 
thereof;  and  provided  also  that  this  article  shall  be  expressly  ratified  and  agreed 
to  by  the  said  Canada  Annual  Conference,  before  any  such  ordination  shall  take  place." 

The  second  and  third  resolutions  reported  by  that  committee  were  consequences  of 
this.  Then  we  find  (pp.  38,  39)  :— 

"  WEDNESDAY  MORNING,  MAY  21. — It  was,  on  motion,  Resolved,  That  the  subject 
of  the  petition  from  the  Canada  Conference  be  resumed ;  whereupon  the  resolutions, 


170 

as  reported  by  the  last  committee  appointed  on  that  subject,  were  read.     It  was  then 
resolved  that  the  subject  shall  now  be  considered  and  acted  on. 

"  Samuel  H.  Thompson  moved,  and  it  was  seconded,  that  the  resolutions,  as  re- 
ported by  the  committee,  be  adopted.  The  question  being  taken,  it  was  decided  in 
the  affirmative — 108  voting  in  favour  of  adoption,  and  22  against  it." 

These  resolutions,  as  has  already  been  seen,  provided  for  the  manner  of  the  organi- 
zation of  an  independent  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Canada.  It  was  providing 
completely  for  the  case  contemplated  by  the  first  resolution  of  Mr.  Ryerson.  Then 
(page  29)  :— 

"  MAY  23. — J.  Emory  moved,  and  it  was  seconded,  that  the  resolution  first  adopted 
on  the  subject  of  the  separation  of  the  Canada  Conference  from  the  Connexion  in  the 
United  States,  be  reconsidered,  and  the  motion  prevailed.  It  was  then  resolved,  on 
motion,  that  this  resolution  be  rescinded." 

This  resolution  first  adopted  they  had  superseded  by  the  passage  of  the  resolutions 
reported  by  the  committee.  This  second  series  of  resolutions,  which  were  adopted, 
provided  for  the  complete  establishment,  at  its  own  choice,  of  a  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  Canada,  with  its  bishop,  and  its  bishop  not  to  have  power  in  the  United 
States,  but  to  be  limited  to  Canada.  They  then  repealed  the  first  resolution,  which 
they  had  previously  passed,  but  which  had  become  perfectly  unnecessary,  because  it 
spoke  of  dissolving  a  compact,  when  here  provision  was  made  for  the  establishment 
of  an  entire  and  separate  Church. 

From  the  reading  of  these  documents,  in  regard  to  the  Canada  case,  it  does  seem 
to  me  very  clear  that  the  General  Conference  of  1828,  not  only  by  its  vote  of  104  to 
43  asserted  the  power  of  consenting,  upon  such  reasons  as  were  there  presented,  to 
the  establishment  of  separate  Churches,  but  also  absolutely  carried  it  out  by  the 
resolutions  reported  by  Dr.  Fisk,  as  the  chairman  of  this  committee,  which  were 
adopted  by  the  Conference.  And  when  this  report  was  adopted,  the  less  efficient 
provision  before  adopted  was  rescinded  as  useless.  This  would  seem  to  be  the 
natural  supposition,  also,  because  on  this  complete  plan  the  vote  was  108  to  22,  and 
it  was  adopted  by  a  much  larger  majority  than  the  other  prior  resolution  had  been. 

Then  came  up  the  difficulty  about  the  Book  Concern ;  and  it  is  somewhat  un 
pleasant  to  see  that  there  should  be  so  much  more  difficulty  about  dividing  funds  than 
dividing  members.  There  has  always  certainly  been  a  bone  of  contention  about  that 
which  did  not  exist  in  regard  to  theological  difficulties.  It  is  a  difficulty  which  I  confess 
is  surprising  to  me,  because  everything  about  this  body,  and  everything  about  its 
institutions,  exhibits  such  an  adoption  of  honourable  poverty,  such  self-denial  in  regard 
to  money  and  money  affairs  ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  strange  things  which  this  investiga- 
tion has  brought  me  to  notice,  that  with  a  body  so  entirely  honourable  as  this,  there 
should  be  this  poor  business  of  making  difficulties  as  to  dividing  funds  which  did  not 
exist  with  regard  to  dividing  bodies.  As  will  be  seen  on  pp.  40,  41,  a  report  of  a 
committee  came  in  on  this  subject.  It  will  be  noticed  that  after  this  organization  of 
the  new  Church,  there  remained  several  new  things  to  be  done  in  connexion  with  it, 
and  one  was  as  to  the  supply  of  books  and  the  apportionment  of  the  book-fund.  The 
provision  for  the  organization  of  a  new  Church  in  Canada  did  not  settle  the 
question  in  relation  to  the  book-fund.  In  1832  this  subject  came  up,  and  in  what 
manner!  Not  on  a  "petition"  from  the  Canada  Conference.  In  1828  the  question 
first  arose  on  a  "  petition,"  but  now  in  1832  we  find  it  come  up  in  a  very  different  style 
on  "An  Address  from  the  Delegates  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  Canada." 
Here  you  have  a  newly-organized  Church,  perfectly  independent  of  this  body,  ad- 
dressing it — addressing  it  not  as  schismatics,  not  by  way  of  recantation,  not  by  way 


171 

of  asking  forgiveness,  not  by  way  of  any  deprecation,  but  claiming  rights.  Here  was 
a  Church  which  had  been  organized  by  the  very  consent  of  this  body,  now  presenting 
itself  in  its  new  organization,  and  in  its  new  independence,  not  with  a  petition,  but 
with  an  address — not  with  a  supplication,  but  with  an  ambassador. — Page  39. 

"  MAY  4,  1832. — An  address  from  the  delegates  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
of  Canada  was  presented  and  read ;  and,  on  motion,  that  part  of  it  relating  to  the 
Book  Concern  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  Book  Concern,  and  that  part 
of  it  relating  to  missions,  referred  to  the  committee  on  missions. 

"  MAY  18. — On  motion,  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  Book  Concern,  respect- 
ing the  Canada  business,  was  called  up." 

A  debate  was  then  had  upon  it.  It  was  again  debated  on  the  19th,  21st,  and  23d 
of  May.  This  address,  as  has  been  seen,  related  to  two  subjects — the  Book  Con- 
cern and  missionary  concerns.  The  report  here  referred  to,  related  to  the  Book 
Concern.  It  will  be  found  on  page  41.  It  was  : — 

"  The  committee  to  whom  was  referred  the  business  of  the  negotiation  with  the 
delegates  of  the  Canada  Conference  on  the  subject  of  our  Book  Concern,  having  had 
the  same  under  their  serious  consideration,  are  of  opinion  that,  in  consideration  of 
their  former  relation  to  us,  and  the  friendly  feeling  and  brotherly  affection  which  now 
exist  between  the  two  Connexions,  as  well  as  in  view  of  the  liberal  and  efficient  sup- 
port they  have  formerly  given  to  the  Concern,  an  apportionment  of  the  property  of 
the  Concern  ought  to  be  made  to  them." 

These  gentlemen,  after  consenting  to  the  establishment  of  a  new  Church,  declare 
that  it  is  an  equitable  principle  that  an  apportionment  of  the  property  ought  to  be 
made,  particularly  on  account  of  the  former  relations  which  had  subsisted  between 
them.  Here  we  have  a  principle  of  equity  declared,  which  must  govern,  and  ought 
to  govern,  in  regard  to  this  Book  Concern,  in  every  case.  This  Conference  of  1832 
declared  as  a  principle  of  equity,  that  in  consideration  of  the  past — and  it  was  a  much 
better  past  in  the  Southern  Church  towards  this  great  body,  than  the  past  of  that  poor 
Canadian  Church,  whose  benefit  to  the  general  body  was  for  the  most  part  to  allow 
them  to  exercise  charity — an  apportionment  of  the  property  ought  to  be  made. 

I  ask  nothing  of  your  Honours  in  this  case,  but  to  incorporate  that  phrase  into 
your  decree ;  that  you  will  only  declare,  with  regard  to  us,  as  the  Conference  of 
1832  declared  in  regard  to  Canada — that  in  consideration  of  our  former  connexion 
with  this  body,  and  the  friendly  feeling  and  brotherly  affection  which  now  exist  be- 
tween the  two  Connexions,  as  well  as  in  view  of  the  liberal  and  efficient  support 
which  we  formerly  gave  to  the  Concern,  it  is  equitable  an  apportionment  of  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Concern  ought  to  be  made  to  us.  Now,  what  prevented  this  being  done 
in  the  Canada  case  1  I  will  continue  to  read  the  report  : — 

"  But  as  constitutional  difficulties  are  believed  to  be  in  the  way  of  such  an  appro- 
priation by  this  Conference,  because  they  have  not  been  instructed  on  this  subject  by 
then:  constituents,  according  to  the  proviso  at  the  end  of  the  restrictive  regulations, 
they  beg  leave  to  submit,  for  the  adoption  of  the  Conference,  the  following  reso- 
lutions." 

These  resolutions  were  to  submit  the  matter  of  apportionment  to  the  annual  con- 
ferences. But  what  is  the  meaning  of  this  report  1  Why,  the  fair  and  honest  view 
is,  that  "  we  consider  in  justice  this  thing  ought  to  be  done ;  this  fund  is  not  our  fund, 
exclusive  of  the  preachers  in  the  Canada  Conference,  and  ought  to  be  divided ;  but  we 
regret  that  we  have  not  the  power  to  do  it, — that  there  are  constitutional  difficulties  to 
such  a  thing  being  done  ;  but,  inasmuch  as  it  ought  to  be  done,  we  shall  refer  the  question 
to  the  annual  conferences."  So  far  as  the  act  of  the  General  Conference  is  concerned, 
it  is  decisive  of  the  question  of  equity,  and  not  decisive  of  the  question  of  power  over 


172 

the  fund,  as  they  left  that  to  the  annual  conferences,  and  the  latter  would  not  agree 
to  it.  Our  learned  friends  on  the  other  side  intend  to  refer  to  the  fact  that  the 
Southern  conferences  at  that  time  did  not  agree  to  this  division.  That  does  not 
establish  the  law.  Undoubtedly,  the  view  of  the  General  Conference,  the  great 
legislative  body  of  this  Church,  when  it  was  enlightened  by  discussion,  was,  that 
though  there  was  doubt  as  to  the  constitutional  power,  yet  there  was  a  plain  equity 
which  ought  to  direct  a  part  of  it  to  the  support  of  the  Canada  preachers.  That  is 
the  way  in  which  this  thing  stands.  So  far  as  our  friends  ask  to  have  your  Honours 
consider  the  weight  of  the  authority  of  the  Southern  conferences,  they  are  very  welcome 
to  it.  I  conceive  that  these  questions  of  constitutional  power  over  funds  belong 
more  properly  to  a  court  of  justice. 

The  manner  in  which  the  vote  was  taken  on  this  subject  is  worthy  of  great  con- 
sideration in  this  connexion.  In  the  first  place,  the  Conference  sanctioned  the  forma- 
tion of  a  separate  Church  in  Canada,  and  they  treated  this  separate  Church  as  not 
schismatical.  Secondly,  they  conceive  there  are  difficulties  in  regard  to  the  restric- 
tive article.  Whether  these  difficulties  were  such  as  would  have  precluded  any  par- 
ticular preacher  from  coming  and  claiming,  after  that  separation,  a  right  to  this  fund, 
was  not  before  them  :  the  right  to  divide  the  fund  itself  they  think  ought  to  be  known, 
and  they  therefore  thought  it  was  safe  to  submit  it  to  the  annual  conferences  ;  and 
the  conferences  voted  that  they  would  not  consent  to  this.  Then  what  took  place1? 
I  would  call  attention,  without  reading  them,  to  pp.  43,  44,  and  45,  to  show  the 
character  in  which  the  two  bodies  held  each  other  after  this  separation.  The  vote 
came  in,  whereby  the  conferences  decided  not  to  consent  to  this  Book  Concern  being 
divided.  The  Conference  of  1836  then  took  up  the  subject,  and  they  appointed  a 
committee.  That  committee  examined  the  votes,  and  found  that  the  necessary  num- 
ber of  votes  had  not  been  given  by  the  annual  conferences  ;  and  then  the  committee 
go  on  to  say  (page  49)  : — 

"  But  inasmuch  as  the  General  Conference  have  ever  claimed  and  exercised  the 
right  to  regulate  the  discount  at  which  our  books  may  be  sold  to  wholesale  pur- 
chasers, and  with  a  view  to  an  amicable  and  final  arrangement  of  all  the  difficulties 
which  have  existed  on  this  subject,  and  especially  with  a  sincere  desire  to  go  as  far 
as  justice  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  will  authorize,  to  encourage  and  per- 
petuate the  friendly  and  fraternal  feelings  which  should  ever  exist  between  the 
different  members  of  the  great  Methodist  family,  the  committee  submit  to  the  consid- 
eration, and  for  the  adoption  of  the  General  Conference,  the  following  arrangement, 
mutually  agreed  to  by  the  delegates  from  Canada  and  the  book  agents,  and  which  we 
are  assured  will  be  satisfactory  to  our  Canadian  brethren,  if  sanctioned  by  this  Con- 
ference. 

"  Whereas  the  Canada  Conference,  now  in  connexion  with  the  Wesleyan  Metho- 
dists of  Great  Britain,  was  formerly  united  to,  and  formed  part  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  ;  and  whereas  the  union,  which  by  mutual  consent  then  subsisted, 
was  dissolved  at  the  earnest  and  repeated  solicitations  of  the  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Church  in  Canada,"  &c. 

Was  this  the  language  of  a  Church  towards  schismatics  1  Then  comes  the  agree- 
ment.— Pp.  50,  51. 

"  The  agents  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  shall  furnish  to  the  book-steward 
of  the  Canada  Conference  any  of  the  books  which  may  be  issued  from  its  press  at  the 
following  rates,  subject  to  the  conditions  and  provisions  hereinafter  named: — 

"  The  general  alphabetical  catalogue  books,  whether  in  sheets  or  bound,  shall  be 
sold  at  forty  per  cent,  discount  from  the  retail  prices,  as  long  as  the  present  discount 
of  one-third  shall  be  made  to  wholesale  purchasers ;  but  should  the  discount  be 
hereafter  changed  to  one-fourth,  then,  in  that  case,  the  books  sold  to  the  book- 
steward  of  the  Canada  Methodists  shall  be  charged  at  a  discount  of  one-third  from 
the  retail  prices,  which  shall,  from  time  to'time,  be  affixed  to  them  respectively." 


173 

That  is  to  say,  instead  of  giving  you  a  part  of  the  fund  directly,  we  will  give  you 
a  share  of  the  profits  by  a  reduction  of  seven  or  eight  per  cent,  on  the  prices  of  the 
books  we  furnish  to  you.  Then  on  page  52  : — 

"  It  is  understood  and  agreed,  that  the  privileges  herein  secured  to  the  Canada 
Conference,  shall  be  binding  on  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  until  the  first  day  of 
May,  1852,  next  ensuing  the  present  date." 

So  that  this  arrangement  was  to  continue  for  sixteen  years.   Then  again,  (p.  52  :) — 

"  Finally,  it  is  hereby  mutually  understood  and  agreed,  that  the  foregoing  arrange- 
ment is  considered  as  a  full,  and  definite,  and  satisfactory  adjustment  of  the  question 
which  has  arisen  between  the  Canada  Conference  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  on  the  subject  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern." 

Then  on  the  23d  of  May,  1832,  (p.  52,  but  which  should  be  on  p.  41,)  after  the 
Canada  Church  had  presented  itself  as  an  independent,  we  find  : — 

"MAY  23,  1832. — On  motion  of  P.  Akers,  which  was  seconded,  Resolved,  That  a 
copy  of  the  resolution  of  the  last  General  Conference,  by  which  the  Canada  Conference 
was  allowed  to  dissolve  connexion  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States,  and  also  a  copy  of  the  acts  of  this  General  Conference  on  Canada 
affairs,  accompany  the  resolutions  about  to  be  presented  to  the  annual  conferences." 

Now,  what  was  the  result  of  this  Canada  transaction  1  In  the  first  place,  the 
Canada  Conference  conceived  that  this  General  Conference  could  divide  itself  without 
schism.  Secondly,  this  Methodist  Church  did  consent  to  the  Canada  Conference 
organizing  itself  as  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  without  a  schism.  Thirdly,  it 
dealt  and  treated  with  it  upon  a  claim  of  right,  as  a  Church  properly  organized,  and 
not  schismatic.  And  what  did  it  hesitate  about  1  The  General  Conference  hesi- 
tated only  on  the  subject  of  its  power  to  divide  the  funds,  under  the  sixth  restrictive 
article,  with  the  Canada  Connexion.  In  other  words,  they  assented  in  the  fullest 
manner  to  its  being  not  a  schismatic  Church,  but  a  separation  merely.  All  that  they 
hesitated  about  was  the  effect  of  that  upon  the  sixth  restrictive  article  in  reference  to 
the  Book  Concern,  and  whether  they  would  change  it.  They  submitted  that  to  the 
annual  conferences,  and  these  decided  against  the  change  That  is  to  say,  they  de- 
cided that  although  these  persons  were  still  distressed  travelling  preachers,  supernu- 
merary, and  worn-out  preachers,  perfectly  good  Methodists,  yet  after  the  separa- 
tion they  conceived  that  the  sixth  restrictive  article  prevented  the  Conference  from 
turning  over  the  funds.  That  was  all  they  doubted.  They  doubted  not  that  these 
beneficiaries  remained  entitled.  They  did  not,  they  could  not  doubt  that ;  but-  they  had 
the  doubts  which  usually  belong  to  persons  who  deal  in  literal  considerations.  That 
was  their  doubt.  So  far  as  it  went,  it  is  a  decision  against  our  views.  I  do  not 
blink  the  question ;  nor  do  I  trouble  my  friends  to  prove  that  the  Conference  consi- 
dered that  the  sixth  restrictive  article  prevented  them  from  dividing  these  funds  even 
with  the  meritorious  ministers  in  this  conference.  But  I  say,  moreover,  that  if  they 
had  not  terminated  that  question  by  a  settlement,  it  would  have  been  subjected  to  a 
much  better  determination  as  a  question  of  law  from  the  courts  of  law,  than  it 
received  as  a  question  of  charity  by  the  votes  of  the  General  and  Annual  Confer- 
ences. It  would  have  been  brought  to  some  legal  tribunal,  which  would  have  exer- 
cised legal  skill  and  legal  judgment,  and  exercised  a  wider  view  on  the  subject  of  charity 
than  it  was  possible  for  gentlemen,  limited  as  these  were  in  knowledge  on  a  subject 
of  this  sort,  to  do.  So  far  as  their  action  went,  they  acknowledged  a  separation  of 
the  Church  as  being  no  schism,  and  that  the  Canadian  ministry  was  a  perfectly 
Christian  ministry,  and  that  they  remained  in  that  Canadian  Church  without  blame 
»nd  reproach.  After  the  separation,  the  judgment  of  three  General  Conferences 


174 

most  distinctly  recognised  as  valid  and  proper  this  separation,  and  not  as  seceding  or 
schismatical. 

Moreover,  the  whole  effect  of  this  judgment,  as  the  gentlemen  may  choose  to  claim 
it,  is  altogether  weakened  when  you  look  at  the  manner  in  which  they  felt  them- 
selves constrained  to  deal  with  the  subject  and  with  this  Church.  They,  in  the  first 
place,  and  in  the  most  explicit  manner,  acknowledged  this  as  a  matter  of  right,  and 
were  acting  in  reference  to  what  they  conceived  to  be  a  very  wrong  idea  of  the  sub- 
ject on  the  part  of  the  annual  conferences.  When  they  originally  submitted  it  to 
the  annual  conferences,  it  was  probably  upon  the  belief  of  that  General  Conference 
of  1832  that  the  annual  conferences  would  view  this  question  as  they  themselves  did. 
They  were  disappointed  when  the  vote  of  the  annual  conferences  came  in.  Being  dis- 
appointed in  this  result,  what  did  they  do  1  They  gave  to  the  Canada  Conference 
out  of  this  fund,  which,  if  it  belonged  to  any  one,  belonged  to  these  distressed  travel- 
ling, supernumerary,  and  superannuated  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children, 
seven  per  cent,  on  the  gross  proceeds  of  the  books  with  which  they  furnished  them. 
If  the  position  of  our  learned  friends  is  correct,  they  had  no  right  to  give  it.  Now, 
they  had  acknowledged  the  principle  of  right,  they  had  acknowledged  the  principle  of 
law,  they  had  themselves  confessed  that  they  did  not  carry  it  out,  they  had  confessed 
it  was  wrong  that  they  did  not  carry  it  out,  and  that  they  had  done  that  which  they 
were  not  justified  in  doing  except  under  the  imputation  of  a  breach  of  charitable 
trust.  They  knew  that  was  not  right,  and  they  meant  nobly  and  honourably  to  re- 
pair the  wrong  they  had  committed.  That  is  the  Canada  case. 

I  submit  to  your  Honours  that  the  necessity  of  the  case,  in  a  body  constituted  as 
this  General  Conference  was,  necessarily  involves  the  power  of  division.  This,  be  it 
remembered,  is  not  the  power  to  sanction  deviation  as  to  doctrine,  it  is  not  the 
power  of  sanctioning  secession  ;  it  is  the  simple  power  of  separating  for  the  sake  of 
convenience  and  efficiency  into  separate  bodies  with  the  same  doctrines,  and  to  be  in 
every  respect  the  same,  except  as  to  the  unwieldiness  of  the  general  body  which  is 
to  govern.  I  call  attention  to  the  twenty-third  article  of  religion,  upon  p.  19  of  the 
Discipline  of  1840,  and  p.  26  of  our  book  No.  1 : — 

"  XXIII.  Of  the  Rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America. — The  president,  the  con- 
gress, the  general  assemblies,  the  governors,  and  the  councils  of  State,  as  the  dele- 
gates of  the  people,  are  the  rulers  of  the  United  States  of  America,  according  to 
the  division  of  power  made  to  them  by  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  by 
the  constitutions  of  their  respective  States.  And  the  said  States  are  a  sovereign  and 
independent  nation,  and  ought  not  to  be  subject  to  any  foreign  jurisdiction." 

Then  in  a  note,  they  add  : — 

"  As  far  as  it  respects  civil  affairs,  we  believe  it  the  duty  of  Christians,  and  espe- 
cially all  Christian  ministers,  to  be  subject  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  country 
where  they  may  reside,  and  to  use  all  laudable  means  to  enjoin  obedience  to  the 
powers  that  be  ;  and,  therefore,  it  is  expected  that  all  our  preachers  and  people,  who 
may  be  under  the  British  or  any  other  government,  will  behave  themselves  as  peace- 
able and  orderly  subjects." 

Now,  this  article  of  religion  evidently  supposes  that  the  Methodist  Church  may  ex- 
tend itself  by  having  Methodist  societies  "under  the  British,  or  any  other  government." 
That  is  to  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the  constitution  of  Methodism.  Now,  suppose 
that,  instead  of  the  conquest  by  this  country  over  the  vast  West,  it  had  been  merely 
the  natural  progress  of  emigration  into  Spanish  or  uncivilized  countries,  and  they 
had  declared  themselves  independent.  Then  the  Methodist  societies  which  had  been 
established,  would  have  been  in  connexion  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
That  extension  of  territory  has  taken  place  under  the  circumstance  of  the  same  civil 


175 

dominion,  instead  of  its  being  under  different  civil  dominion.  Is  it  possible  to  sup- 
pose that  the  legislative  body  of  a  Church,  looking  to  such  a  spread  over  the  world, 
should  have  conceived  that  it  should  have  no  power  to  separate  itself  into  govern- 
ments for  different  parts  of  it,  without  those  governments  being  actually  schismatic 
and  separate  1 — that  whatever  difference  of  circumstance  might  be,  it  was  not  in  the 
power  of  this  general  body  to  form  itself  into  separate  bodies,  without  those  separate 
bodies  being  essentially  schismatical,  so  that  whatever  belongs  to  the  preachers  of  the 
general  bodies  shall  not  belong  to  the  preachers  of  a  separate  body,  except  as  a 
matter  which  is  to  be  got  over  by  some  leaping  over  the  difficulty,  as  was  done  in 
the  Canada  case  1  Would  they  say,  that  that  which  was  a  question  of  right  should 
not  be  decided  by  the  general  governing  body  of  the  Church,  but  should  be  de- 
cided by  an  artificial  and  fettered  judgment,  which,  when  I  come  to  consider  it,  I 
think  I  can  show  to  the  Court,  has  not,  and  cannot  have  any  relation  to  this  sub- 
ject. I  say,  when  you  take  into  consideration  the  idea  of  the  Methodists  as  being  a 
strongly  aggressive  body,  spreading  itself  over  the  earth,  so  as  to  embrace  the  lower 
classes  of  the  people  in  a  degree  which  no  other  denomination  has  ever  pretended  to 
do ;  and  when  you  consider  this  provision  in  the  very  articles  of  religion  looking 
to  its  spread  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  you  cannot  for  an  instant  suppose 
that  in  that  Discipline  the  general  governing  body  is  restricted  (without  their  being 
any  restriction  in  terms  on  the  subject)  from  consenting  to  a  separation  of  the  Cnurch 
into  as  many  general  governing  bodies  as  the  necessities  of  the  case  might  require. 
As  to  the  consequence  of  that  principle  upon  the  fund,  I  prefer  to  suspend  any 
argument  until  I  come  to  consider  it  specially.  I  am  now  considering,  and  solely 
considering,  whether  this  General  Conference  has  not  the  power  to  consent  to  a  divi- 
sion without  its  being  schismatic,  and  without  its  disqualifying  those  members  and 
clergy  who  adhere  to  the  separate  body.  Not  only  does  the  extension  of  territory  con- 
templated by  the  Discipline  look  to  this,  but  the  physical  difficulties  which  grow  out 
of  that  extension  require  us  to  contemplate  it.  How  does  this  operate  on  the  power 
of  the  Church,  looking  to  the  case  of  delegates  to  the  conferences  from  Oregon  and 
from  California,  making  five  or  six  months'  voyages,  or  coming  in  the  costly  way  in 
which  passengers  come  from  the  gold  regions.  By-and-by  the  Methodist  Church  in 
those  countries  will  embrace  large  classes  of  people.  They  are  now  under  the 
'  government  of  the  General  Conference  here.  What  is  to  become  of  these  men  when 
this  becomes  to  be  a  very  populous  region  on  the  Pacific  coast  1  Are  they  to  be 
represented  in  any  General  Conference  1  Are  the  men  from  California  and  Oregon, 
and  all  the  States  which  will  be  created  in  that  region,  to  meet  here  1  Or  are 
those  here  to  go  over  the  mountains  1  Is  time  and  space  to  be  so  absolutely  oblite- 
rated, that  the  Church  can  go  on  and  govern  the  whole  of  this  country  by  one  single, 
general  body  of  delegations.  I  submit,  that  although  that  is  no  difficulty  in  the  eye 
of  a  statesman  with  the  wealth  of  the  general  government  at  his  beck,  yet  to  this 
Church  it  is  an  insuperable  difficulty.  The  very  extension  of  territory  this  distance, 
and  the  great  population  which  may  be  collected  in  these  quarters,  prevent  the  pos- 
sibility of  this  Church  not  separating  at  some  time  or  other  amicably,  properly,  and 
faithfully,  into  separate  governing  bodies.  And  when  that  separation  shall  become 
expedient,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it  would  be  strange  doctrine  to  say,  that  this  General 
Conference,  which  succeeded  to  the  powers  of  a  conference  composed  of  all  the 
power  of  the  Church,  and  which  in  this  act  was  not  restricted,  for  there  is  no  restric- 
tion on  the  power  of  division, — it  would  be  against  the  very  starting  principle  of  the 
diffusiveness  of  this  Church  to  hold,  that  it  could  not  provide  for  its  own  government 
by  separating  the  meeting  of  these  ministers  in  a  delegated  body,  in  the  manner  to 
which  I  have  alluded. 


176 

But  there  is  the  itinerancy  of  the  bishops,  according  to  the  theory  on  the  other  side. 
It  is  not  the  theory  which  we  adopt,  that  the  itinerancy  of  a  bishop  means  that  he 
must  actually  visit  or  be  capable  of  visiting  every  part,  not  of  a  diocese,  but  of  all 
the  conferences  of  all  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Who  are  to  be  bishops  1 
Are  they  to  be  young  men  of  from  seventeen  to  twenty  years  old,  able  to  endure 
these  fatigues  1  Or  are  they  to  be,  for  the  most  part,  men  of  maturity,  men  of  age,  of 
ripened  experience,  becoming  somewhat  infirm  from  their  labours  1  That  is  the 
material  of  which  the  bishops  of  this  Church  have  always  been  composed.  Now,  let 
us  see  whether  it  would  be  possible,  in  relation  to  this,  to  carry  on  this  Church  with- 
out a  separation.  It  seems  to  be  impossible.  The  argument  of  our  friends  on  the 
other  side  as  to  the  itinerancy  of  the  bishops  has  very  little  force,  because  it  is  ob- 
viously impossible  that  every  bishop  could  visit  every  part  of  the  jurisdiction  of  all 
the  annual  conferences.  This  itinerancy  we  suppose  must  be  deemed  to  mean  an 
itinerancy  as  opposed  to  a  diocesan  episcopacy, — that  there  shall  not  be  a  bishop  con- 
fined to  one  conference,  but  that  he  shall  have  the  duty,  and  shall  take  the  office,  of 
visiting  all  the  conferences  in  a  certain  large  Connexion. 

Again  :  differences  of  climate  may  well  call  for  a  division  or  separation  of  the 
Church.  The  population  of  this  Northern  country,  although  considerable,  is  yet  very 
far  short  of  that  which  upon  every  principle  we  may  soon  expect  to  find  it.  So  of 
the  Southern  country.  Therefore,  the  labours  of  these  bishops  will  very  materially 
increase  with  an  increase  of  population,  and  it  may  be  very  difficult  to  find  bishops 
who  would  be  able  to  serve  in  this  Northern  and  Southern  Church,  under  this  dif- 
ference of  climate.  That  very  difference  of  climate  may  make  a  very  grievous 
difficulty  with  this  Church  to  carry  on  its  system  without  a  separation  into  parts. 
And  is  it  a  fact  that  this  constitution,  which  contemplates  this  great  activity  and 
diffusiveness,  is  so  limited  by  implication — because  there  is  no  expression  to  limit  it — 
that  it  can  never  adapt  itself  to  such  a  pressing  difficulty,  which  is  already  at  hand  1 
I  suppose,  in  fact,  this  difficulty  existed  before  the  separation ;  the  Northern  and 
Southern  bishops  could  not  very  well  interchange  with  each  other  ;  and  I  am  told, 
that  one  of  the  bishops  has  not  been  South  for  some  ten  or  fifteen  years,  and  no 
doubt  for  the  best  of  reasons. 

I  propose,  now,  to  allude  to  another  difficulty,  which  is  the  very  thing  that  has 
occurred  in  this  case — a  difference  in  the  temper  of  the  people.  Here  is  a  part  of' 
this  great  community  which  tolerates  slavery,  and  a  part  in  which  slavery  is  un- 
known. How  do  they  treat  it  1  This  Church  treats  slavery  as  an  evil — the  same  as 
the  existence  of  crime,  of  poverty,  of  disease  ;  and  the  difference  between  the  two 
parties  is  how  to  treat  it.  One  says,  "  Extirpate  it ;"  the  other  says,  "  We  cannot 
extirpate  it,  but  we  shall  be  extirpated  if  we  attempt  it."  This  body  has  said  to  its 
private  members,  "  You  may  entertain  your  views  about  this  and  be  in  good  stand- 
ing and  connexion."  These  members  are  the  ones  to  whom  the  bishop  is  to  make 
his  visitations,  and  over  whom  his  supervision  of  the  preachers  is  eventually  to  take 
effect.  Now,  is  it  possible  to  say,  that  in  such  a  country  as  ours,  where  this  diffi- 
culty has  always  been  more  or  less  great,  this  Church  could  prosper  if  they  did  not 
tolerate  it  1  It  would  be  like  supposing  a  man  could  run  when  his  legs  were  mana- 
cled. I  contend  that  it  was  a  necessary  act  of  preservation,  that,  in  the  event 
that  the  temper  of  the  people  made  a  co-operation  of  all  the  parts  inconvenient  and 
impracticable,  they  had  the  power  of  division  or  separation,  in  order  to  reach  a  large 
body  of  the  people  of  this  country.  Is  it  to  be  conceived  of,  that  the  constitution  of 
this  Church  did  not  allow,  but  forbade  by  implication,  that  there  should  be  an  organ- 
ization adapted  to  the  different  temper  of  the  people  1  Why,  if  the  doctrine  which 
is  presented  here  be  correct,  that  no  bishop  should  be  a  slaveholder,  that  he  should 


177 

have  no  sympathy  with  those  who  held  slaves,  the  Southern  country  would  always 
be  visited  by  really  foreign  bishops.  Is  it  not  palpable,  that  such  a  system  could 
not  operate  in  the  Southern  country  T  Must  not  these  gentlemen  have  seen  that 
men  never  would  receive  religious  instruction  altogether  from  strangers,  and  whose 
being  strangers  would  be  evidence  of  contempt  towards  those  whom  they  visited  ? 
I  submit,  that  it  would  be  the  last  thing  to  suppose  of  the  wise  constructors  of  this 
system,  that  they  should  have  made  no  provision  whereby  this  Church  might  adapt 
itself,  by  a  division,  to  the  great  end  of  carrying  the  Gospel,  without  offence,  to  all 
the  different  parts  of  this  extensive  country. 

I  would  advert  now  to  another  matter — political  dissensions,  political  disruptions 
Is  this  Church  so  constituted,  that  it  shall  be  powerless  to  meet  any  such  exigency  1 
Look  to  the  case  of  Canada.  That  was  in  the  connexion  of  the  Church  in  this 
country.  There  was  a  war  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain  ;  and  members 
of  this  Church  were  arrayed  against  each  other.  Both  parties  had  felt  the  conse- 
quences of  war.  And  was  this  Church  so  powerless  that  it  could  not  lawfully  con- 
sent to  the  Methodists  in  Canada  organizing  a  separate  Church,  without  their  being 
schismatical  and  separatists  1  They  have  practically  solved  the  question,  and  solved 
it  according  to  good  sense,  and  solved  it  against  that  restrictive  implication  which 
they  wish  to  insert  in  this  Discipline. 

Again  :  the  number  of  delegates  which  might  be  sent,  might  make  a  necessity  for  a 
division.  There  is  an  extent  to  which  this  evil  might  be  limited,  by  lessening  the 
ratio  of  representation.  It  was  originally  one  for  five  ;  then  one  for  seven  ;  then  one 
for  fourteen  ;  and  finally  one  for  twenty-one.  It  is  perfectly  plain,  that  to  carry  it 
very  much  further  would  leave  no  representation  at  all.  If  the  ratio  was  one  for  one 
hundred,  there  would  be  no  real  representation.  It  might  be  a  representation  from  a 
people  to  a  government,  but  this  was  to  be  a  representation  of  delegates  from  preach- 
ers. It  was  a  delegation  from  one  governing  body  to  a  superior  governing  body. 
What  would  be  a  ratio  of  one  delegate  to  one  thousand  preachers  1  How  could  such 
a  delegate  feel  for  his  constituents  1  How  could  he  express  their  feelings  1  There 
must  be  a  limit  to  this  ;  and  when  this  limit  should  be  reached,  the  only  remedy 
would  be  the  organization  of  a  separate  body  under  similar  principles. 

The  increase  of  population  in  this  country,  for  the  next  fifty  years,  would  of  itself 
render  this  body  so  unwieldy,  that,  for  that  reason  alone,  a  separation  would  be  a  ne- 
cessary measure.  I  say  that  these  considerations,  growing  out  of  the  history  of  this 
body,  and  out  of  the  necessity  of  the  case,  are  entirely  consistent  with  the  substance 
of  this  Discipline. 

I  turn  now  to  the  rules  touching  the  General  and  annual  conferences  ;  I  come  to  the 
text  of  the  constitution,  so  to  say,  (p.  27  of  No.  1,) — 

"  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference,  and  what  are  the  regulations  and 
powers  belonging  to  it  1 

"  Ans.  1.  The  General  Conference  shall  be  composed  of  one  member  for  every 
twenty-one  members  of  each  annual  conference,  to  be  appointed  either  by  seniority 
or  choice,  at  the  discretion  of  such  annual  conference  ;  yet  so  that  such  representa- 
tives shall  have  travelled  at  least  four  full  calendar  years  from  the  time  that  they 
were  received  on  trial  by  an  annual  conference,  and  are  in  full  connexion  at  the  time 
of  holding  the  Conference." 

Observe  the  character  of  this  body.  These  delegates  are  "  to  be  appointed  either 
by  seniority  or  choice,"  and  they  are  to  be  taken  from  the  constituent  body  whom 
they  represent  : — 

"  3.  At  all  times  when  the  General  Conference  is  met,  it  shall  take  two-thirds  of 
the  representatives  of  all  the  annual  conferences  to  make  a  quorum  for  transacting 
business.  **»***»*«*»•*« 

12 


178 

"  5.  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regula- 
tions for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions." 

I  submit  that  we  should  construe  these  articles,  on  the  supposition  that  the  powers 
of  the  Conference  were  great  enough  to  have  these  restrictions  carved  out  of  them. 
These  powers  would  have  embraced  everything  which  the  restrictions  carved  out,  if 
these  restrictions  had  not  been  imposed.  The  expression  on  this  subject,  in  logic,  I 
suppose,  is,  that  "the  exception  proves  the  rule  ;"  that  is,  if  there  is  a  necessity  for 
the  exception,  it  is  a  proof  that  the  rule  would  extend  to  the  excepted  case  if  the 
exception  did  not  exist.  Now,  what  is  the  first  restriction  1 

"  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  articles  of  reli- 
gion, nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine." 

Does  not  the  putting  in  of  this  restriction  admit  that  the  power  of  the  Conference 
would  have  been  extensive  enough  to  change  their  doctrines,  if  this  restriction  had  not 
been  inserted  1  Otherwise,  it  would  be  idle  to  put  it  in.  How  extensive  then  are 
the  powers  of  this  Conference !  It  could  now  change  the  whole  character  of  the  body 
but  for  this  restriction.  Then  the  second  restriction  is  : — 

"They  shall  not  allow  of  more  than  one  representative  for  every  fourteen  members 
of  the  annual  conference,  nor  allow  of  a  less  number  than  one  for  every  thirty  :  pro- 
vided, nevertheless,  that  when  there  shall  be  in  any  annual  conference  a  fraction  of 
two-thirds  the  number  which  shall  be  fixed  for  the  ratio  of  representation,  such  annual 
conference  shall  be  entitled  to  an  additional  delegate  for  such  fraction  ;  and  provided 
also,  that  no  conference  shall  be  denied  the  privilege  of  two  delegates." 

If  it  had  not  been  for  this  second  restrictive  article,  the  General  Conference  might 
have  allowed  the  rate  of  representation  to  vary  in  any  indefinite  mode  they  pleased. 
They  might  have  bridged  the  difficulties  which  are  constantly  occurring  in  the  history 
of  large  bodies.  They  might,  as  is  sometimes  done  in  England,  have  swamped  the 
peerage  by  the  creation  of  new  peers.  They  might,  on  a  temporary  occasion,  have 
allowed  to  the  Northern  or  the  Southern  conferences  a  double  or  triple  representation. 
This  restriction  was  introduced  to  prevent  this  being  done.  Does  not  this  show  a 
kind  of  omnipotence,  so  to  say,  in  the  power  of  this  body,  so  far  as  this  Church  is 
concerned  ?  Is  it  not  the  power  of  parliament  itself,  that  can  change  the  time  for 
which  it  was  elected  to  serve  ?  It  can  change  the  subject  of  representation  ;  it  can 
change  and  alter  the  franchise  ;  it  can  change  everything  about  it.  So  could  this 
body  ;  and  so  can  this  body,  except  according  to  this  restriction.  Then, 

"3.  They  shall  not  change  or  alter  any  part  or  rule  of  our  government,  so  as  to  do 
away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  our  itinerant  general  superintendency." 

"  Destroy"  is  the  word.  Without  this  restriction  could  they  not  have  altered  and 
done  away  with  episcopacy  ?  Could  they  not  have  destroyed  the  general  superin- 
tendency 1  They  were  in  fact  the  Church  ;  they  were  the  general  council  of  the 
Church,  with  the  primitive  and  original  power  and  authority  of  the  Church  as  a 
Church.  What  does  the  phrase,  "  so  as  to  do  away  episcopacy,"  mean  1  Why,  that 
they  may  vary  episcopacy;  they  may  limit  it,  but  shall  not  "destroy"  the  plan  of 
our  itinerant  general  superintendency.  They  may  make  the  itinerancy,  instead  of 
being  absolutely  general,  general  according  to  circumstances  ;  they  may  excuse  a 
bishoj-  from  running  all  over  the  United  States  ;  they  may  excuse  a  man  disqualified 
by  his  peculiar  notions,  and  not  disturb  the  plan  of  general  itinerant  superintendency. 
I  know  very  well  the  extent  to  which  we  go  for  these  gentlemen's  benefit  in  the  case 
of  Bishop  Andrew,  when  we  make  these  remarks.  But  we  cannot  read  this  article 
without  seeing  that  whatever  can  be  done  in  consistence  with  the  language  and 

12* 


179 

spirit  of  the  third  restrictive  article,  the  General  Conference  can  do.  They,  there- 
fore, can  do  anything  with  the  plan  of  episcopacy,  except  doing  it  away.  That  is 
their  power,  without  regard  to  the  annual  conferences.  Then, 

"  4.  They  shall  not  revoke  or  change  the  general  rules  of  the  United  Societies." 

These  are  the  rules  of  Church  membership.  They  are  the  modes  by  which  men 
attach  themselves  to  the  integral  societies  of  this  Methodist  Connexion.  Then  again, 

"  5.  They  shall  not  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  ministers  or  preachers  of  trial  by  a 
committee,  and  of  an  appeal ;  neither  shall  they  do  away  the  privileges  of  our  mem- 
bers of  trial  before  the  society,  or  by  a  committee,  and  of  an  appeal." 

They  are  not  to  do  away  with  the  mode  of  trial,  but  they  may  regulate  everything 
about  it  ;  they  may  say  how  the  trial  shall  be  conducted.  They  are  not  to  do  away 
these  privileges  of  the  preachers  and  members.  Then,  finally, 

"  6.  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the 
Charter  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernu- 
merary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

They  may  deal  with  it  in  any  way,  except  that  they  shall  not  appropriate  it  to  any^ 
other  purpose  ;  but  we  are  not  upon  that  now.     We   are  now  upon  the  question  of   \ 
consenting  to  a  separation  of  the  Church  into  parts.     Is  there  any  restriction  which 
prevents  that  1     Is  there  any  provision  which  says  that  this  Church  shall  not  divide 
itself  into  parts  1     But  the  gentlemen  will  doubtless  say,  this  constitution  contains    j 
within  itself  an  article  for  its  own  amendment.     I  beg  their  pardon.     It  contains  an   j 
article  for  amendment  only,  in  regard  to  these  restrictive  rules.     If  the  thing  proposed  / 
to  be  amended  is  not  in  the  restrictive  articles,  then  the  vote  of  the  conferences  can-  / 
not  change  it,  and  the  vote  of  one  single  conference  standing  out,  would  defeat  any/ 
change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church.     There  is  no  power  of  change  as  to  matters 
not   in  the  restrictive  articles  ;  and  the  very  fact  that  there  is  no  power  of  changO 
except  as  to  these  restrictive  articles,  shows  that  there  is  no  limitation  of  the  authority 
of  the  Church  except  these  restrictive  articles. 

On  the  subject  of  this  power  of  the  General  Conference,  I  would  ask,  What  restric- 
tive article  is  conceived  to  be  violated  by  a  Plan  of  Separation  which  adopts  every 
restrictive  article,  and  all  the  terms  of  the  constitution  !  Which  is  the  article  that 
is  violated  !  Is  it  changing  the  articles  of  religion  ?  If  it  does,  it  is  restricted  ;  if  it 
does  not,  it  is  not  restricted.  I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  article  of  religion  is 
changed,  by  allowing  the  Southern  Church  to  organize  itself  as  a  new  Church,  with 
the  very  same  article.  Does  it  change  the  ratio  of  representation  1  Does  it,  in  the 
sense  of  the  third  restriction,  do  away  episcopacy,  or  destroy  the  plan  of  general 
itinerant  superintendency  1  In  other  words,  does  it  convert  the  Methodist  bishop  into 
a  diocesan  bishop  in  any  sense  whatever  1  I  know  that  this  may  be  a  matter  of 
degree — a  bishop  might  be  limited  to  one  or  two  conferences.  That  would  be,  I 
admit,  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  article,  and  indeed  of  the  article  itself ;  but  I 
ask,  if  limiting  a  bishop  to  thirteen  conferences,  more  conferences  than  existed  at  the 
time  this  constitution  was  adopted,  with  more  persons  to  be  governed,  was  doing 
away  with  the  episcopacy,  or  destroying  the  plan  of  itinerant  general  superintend- 
ency 1  Does  it  revoke  or  change  the  general  rules  of  the  United  Societies  1  Does 
it  take  away  the  privileges  of  preachers  and  members  to  trial  ?  Does  it  appropriate 
the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  or  of  the  Chartered  Funu,  to  any  other  purpose 
than  the  benefit  of  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  superannuated  preachers  ?  Does 
it  vary  the  persons  by  whom  these  contributions  must  reach  the  beneficiaries  t  I 
suppose  that,  under  the  Plan  of  Separation,  the  part  of  this  Book  Concern  which 


180 

must  go  to  the  beneficiaries  in  the  Southern  Church  is  to  be  applied  according  to  the 
Discipline  of  1840. 

Suppose,  now,  that  the  Plan  of  Separation  is  absolutely  void,  and  that,  by  reason 
of  the  mistake  into  which  we  have  been  led,  we  are  not  schismatical,  but  merely  con- 
tumacious, and  have  not  come  up  to  the  General  Conference.  The  fund  is  to  be  dis- 
tributed. Who  are  to  distribute  it  1  The  very  annual  conferences  at  the  South,  as 
they  are  now  constituted.  They  are  the  very  original  bodies  of  Methodism.  They 
would  take  this  fund,  and  they  would  distribute  it  to  the  very  same  beneficiaries. 
This  is  a  practical  thing ;  and  our  learned  friends,  when  they  come  to  speak  of  the 
Plan  of  Separation  violating  the  order  of  the  Church,  in  allowing  it  to  divide  itself 
into  two  parts,  and  to  give  to  each  part  the  vitality  of  a  complete  organization,  must 
show  practically  how  it  defeated  this  restrictive  system.  I  submit  that  it  did  not. 

I  come  now  to  the  judgment  of  this  body  on  this  very  subject.  I  have  said  what 
I  need  to  say  on  the  subject  of  the  judgment  of  the  Canada  Conference.  The  Gene- 
ral Conference  never  left  it  to  the  annual  conferences  to  determine  whether  they  had 
the  power  of  assenting  to  the  Canada  Methodists  forming  a  separate  body.  They 
never  hesitated  about  that ;  they  never  doubted  that  that  formed  a  true  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  not  separatist  nor  schismatic.  That  was  the  Conference  of  1832  ; 
it  was  followed  up  by  the  action  of  the  Conference  of  1836.  That  of  1840  had  no 
connexion  with  this  subject.  The  judgment  of  the  Conference  of  1844  was  in  favour 
of  this  view  of  the  power  of  division.  I  shall  examine  the  Plan  of  Separation  more 
particularly  hereafter ;  but  I  would  now  remark  that  it  was  never  submitted  to  the 
annual  conferences  to  say  whether  there  should  be  a  separate  organization  or  not. 
The  question  submitted  was  a  very  different  one,  whether  they  should  alter  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  so  as  to  put  this  fund  at  the  command  of  two-thirds  of  the  General 
Conference ;  so  that,  instead  of  having  the  profits  of  this  Book  Concern  applied  to 
the  relief  of  beneficiaries,  they  might,  if  that  proposition  had  passed,  have  voted  it  to 
the  establishment  of  a  colony  in  Liberia,  or  to  any  other  purpose  than  this.  They 
did  not  submit  to  the  annual  conferences  the  question  whether  they  should  separate 
the  Church  into  two  parts,  so  that  each  should  be  a  genuine,  a  true  Church  ;  and  I 
may  be  permitted  to  say,  in  relation  to  that  Conference,  that  it  was  composed  of  ex- 
ceedingly able  men,  as  the  documents  show. 

One  other  remark  on  this  subject,  and  I  leave  this  particular  question — this  power 
to  divide  itself  into  two  bodies, — that  is,  the  opinion  of  the  bishops,  p.  101,  book  No.  2. 
I  think  our  reference  to  this,  in  our  bill  of  complaint,  has  not  been  understood  by  the 
other  side.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  bishops  have  power  to  alter  the  constitution 
of  this  Church,  nor  give  any  declaratory  opinions  which  can  bind  the  Church.  We 
do  not  present  it  in  that  way,  no  more  than  we  would  present  the  judgment  from 
Lord  Lyndhurst  to  bind  this  Court ;  but  what  we  do  present  it  for,  is,  to  show  that 
in  the  judgment  of  the  coolest,  best,  and  the  wisest  men  in  that  Church,  there  was 
no  hesitation  as  to  the  existence  of  this  power,  and  that  it  was  properly  and  well 
exercised  in  1844.  It  is,  as  I  might  say,  the  opinion  of  highly-respectable  persons 
conversant  with  that  which  we  are  now  discussing.  I  will  read  it. 

"  This  council  met  in  the  city  of  New- York,  July  2,  1845,  and  was  attended  by 
Bishops  Hedding,  Waugh,  Morris,  and  Janes.  Bishop  Hamline  sent  his  opinion  in 
writing  on  the  points  to  be  acted  on  by  the  council ;  Bishop  Soule  did  not  attend  ; 
and  Bishop  Andrew,  being  suspended,  was  not  invited.  Besides  agreeing  on  a  new 
plan  of  visitation,  the  bishops  adopted  the  following  resolutions,  intended  for  the 
government  of  their  own  administration  : — 

"  '  1.  Resolved,  That  the  Plan  reported  by  the  select  committee  of  nine  at  the  last 
General  Conference,  and  adopted  by  that  body,  in  regard  to  a  distinct  ecclesiastical 
connexion,  should  such  a  course  be  found  necessary  by  the  annual  conferences  in 


181 

the  slaveholding  States,  is  regarded  by  us  as  of  binding  obligation  in  the  premises,  so 
far  as  our  administration  is  concerned.'  " 

That  is  to  say,  we  regard  it  as  binding  on  us,  and  shall  obey  it ;  the  Conference 
of  1848  said  they  considered  it  null  and  void,  and  that  the  Conference  of  1844  had 
no  power  to  pass  it. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  in  order  to  ascertain  fairly  the  desire  and  purpose  of  those 
societies  bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  in  regard  to  their  adherence  to  the  Church, 
North  or  South,  due  notice  should  be  given  of  the  time,  place,  and  object  of  the 
meeting  for  the  above  purpose,  at  which  a.  chairman  and  secretary  should  be  ap- 
pointed, and  the  sense  of  all  the  members  present  should  be  ascertained,  and  the 
same  be  forwarded  to  the  bishop  who  may  preside  at  the  ensuing  annual  conferences  ; 
or  forward  to  said  presiding  bishop  a  written  request  to  be  recognised,  and  have  a 
preacher  sent  them,  with  the  names  of  the  majority  appended  thereto." 

They  not  only  declare  it  is  binding  so  far  as  their  administration  is  concerned,  but 
they  institute  a  mode  to  carry  out  successfully  that  which  their  successors  call  a 
separatist  and  schismatic  body.  I  do  not  propose  this  as  binding  your  judgments  ; 
perhaps  the  judgment  of  these  bishops  is  of  the  least  value  in  this  matter.  But  so 
far  as  this  religious  body  is  concerned,  I  must  submit,  and  certainly  out  of  respect 
to  the  character  of  these  bishops,  that  when  they  adopted  these  resolutions,  and 
signed  this  paper,  and  undertook  to  carry  out  this  plan  of  organization  of  the  South- 
ern Church,  by  having  a  vote  taken  as  to  which  Church  the  societies  should  adhere, 
their  judgment  was  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  the  separation ;  that  it  was  compe- 
tent for  the  General  Conference,  for  grave  reasons,  to  separate  itself  into  two  bodies, 
each  of  which  should  be  a  true,  genuine,  and  authentic  hierarchy  in  this  Church,  and 
calculated  to  carry  out  its  excellent  purpose.  This  minute  was  passed  July  2,  1845  ; 
the  Southern  Church  had  organized  and  issued  its  manifesto  May  17.  It  was  there- 
fore a  declaration  in  the  very  sight  of  the  difficulties.  Let  us  look  a  little  at 
these  acts. 

The  Conference  of  1844,  without  any  hesitation,  passed  a  plan  for  an  amicable 
division.  Here  is  nothing  said  against  it ;  they  felt  themselves  at  liberty  to  vote 
to  organize  a  new  Church.  The  bishops  take  the  act  up  when  the  Church  was  or- 
ganized, and  when  it  was  still  in  the  power  of  individuals  to  withdraw,  and  say,  "  We 
act  in  obedience  to  this  administration  ;  we,  the  Northern  bishops,  acting  together, 
some  of  us  being  present,  and  another  giving  his  opinion  in  writing,  tell  you,  Go  on, 
form  that  Southern  body  ;  choose  your  adherence," — and  they  do  it.  What  then? 
Says  the  Conference  of  1848,  "  By  that  act  you  become  separatists,  and  all  this 
great  fund,  the  produce  of  common  labour,  toil,  economy,  activity,  and  suffering, 
you,  by  adopting  this  plan,  and  acting  as  your  bishops  have  acted,  in  conformity  and 
obedience  to  it,  have  forfeited  for  yourselves,  for  your  wives,  for  your  children,  for 
the  orphans  of  your  brethren  ;  and  as  a  matter  of  conscience  we  cannot  let  you 
touch  a  dollar  of  it ;  but  our  beneficiaries  shall  have  three  parts  where  before  they 
had  but  two."  That  is  the  way  hi  which  this  controversy  presents  itself,  I  am  sure 
unwittingly  and  unexpectedly  to  those  who  brought  themselves  to  make  it.  Bui 
there  it  is  ;  we  have  become  schismatics.  We  have  forfeited  not  for  ourseh>s,  we 
who  are  the  belligerents ;  we,  who  engage  in  the  revolution,  may  afford  to  be 
hanged  if  we  do  not  succeed ;  these  are  the  terms  on  which  we  enter.  But  after 
this  act,  into  which  we  enter  by  their  invitation,  sanctioned  by  a  General  Confer- 
ence composed  of  men  of  greater  ability,  perhaps,  than  ever  met  in  the  same  Church, 
and  sanctioned  by  their  bishops  who  co-operated  with  us  in  the  formation  of  this 
Church,  we  are  told,  hi  1848,  "when  you  did  that,  you  put  yourselves  out  of  the 
pale  of  this  Church ;  you  forfeited,  not  your  right  to  take  alms,  but  your  retiring 
pensions,  your  savings'-bank  deposits,  your  life  insurances ;  your  wives,  your 


182 

widows,  and  your  children,  all  suffer  in  this  common  calamity."  It  is  the  visitation 
of  the  sin  of  Adam  in  a  very  different  way  upon  all  this  connexion  of  this  Church. 
for  doing  an  act  which  everybody,  in  1845  and  1846,  thought  lawful.  That  is  the 
way  in  which  the  controversy  now  stands  ;  and  I  propose  now  to  take  up  the  subject 
of  whether  there  was  any  doubt  on  the  effect  of  that  Plan  of  Separation.  I  have 
finished  what  I  have  to  say  on  the  power  of  the  Conferences. 

Upon  this  point  I  say  that  the  General  Conference  of  1844  did,  in  fact  and  on  a 
proper  ground,  consent  to  such  division,  to  take  effect  immediately,  in  the  choice  of 
the  Southern  conferences,  and  without  any  condition.  This  Plan  is  found  on  p.  128  of 
our  book.  I  will  first  read  it,  and  make  some  remarks  upon  its  text ;  and  then  consider 
the  circumstances  under  which  it  was  passed,  to  see  whether  it  was  considered 
transitory,  or  whether  it  was  adopted  as  a  final  thing  which  everybody  supposed 
would  be  acted  upon  and  become  permanent. 

"  The  select  committee  of  nine,  to  consider  and  report  on  the  Declaration  of  the 
delegates  from  the  conferences  of  the  slaveholding  States,  beg  leave  to  submit  the 
following  report : — " 

It  has  been  made  a  question,  whether  this  Plan  of  Separation  was  adopted  upon 
the  existence  of  the  difficulties  to  which  we  have  been  led  in  the  reading  of  the 
Proofs.  Our  friends  on  the  other  side  say  it  did  not. 

"  Whereas  a  Declaration  has  been  presented  to  this  General  Conference,  with  the 
signatures  of  fifty-one  delegates  of  the  body,  from  thirteen  annual  conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States,  representing  that,  for  various  reasons  enumerated,  the  objects 
and  purposes  of  the  Christian  ministry  and  Church  organization  cannot  be  success- 
fully accomplished  by  them  under  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference  as  now 
constituted." 

That  is  the  declaration  of  an  existing  fact  in  the  opinion  of  those  delegates. 

"  And  whereas,  in  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  contingency  to  which  the  Declara- 
tion asks  attention  as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Confer- 
ence to  meet  the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity." 

This  bears  on  what  I  have  said  as  to  its  being  an  amicable  separation.  They 
thought  it  their  duty  to  meet  it  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity  ; 
to  which  I  would  introduce  as  a  note  what  they  declared  when  the  Canada  Confer- 
ence spoke  on  the  subject  of  the  Book  Concern,  that  it  was  just  in  regard  to  their 
former  relations  and  their  liberality  that  they  should  have  their  share. 

"  Therefore,  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  Ge- 
neral Conference  assembled, 

"  1.  That,  should  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  find  it  neces- 
sary to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  connexion,  the  following  rule  shall  be  observed 
with  regard  to  the  Northern  boundary  of  such  connexion." 

Permit  me  to  call  your  attention  to  an  alteration  here ;  it  stood  as  originally  pre- 
sented by  the  committee,  "  That  should  the  delegates  from  the  conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States  find  it  necessary  ;"  thus  leaving  it  to  the  delegates  then  present. 
These  delegates  shrunk  from  that  responsibility,  and  on  motion  of  Mr.  Paine,  the 
words  "  delegates  from  the,"  were  stricken  out.  But  it  was  intended  as  a  Plan  to 
be  made  and  acted  upon  as  much,  whether  it  was  the  delegates  who  decided  for  it, 
or  the  conferences  from  which  they  came.  The  object  of  those  delegates  was  to 
change  the  responsibility  of  the  mode  of  action  from  themselves  to  the  conferences 
which  they  represented. 

"  All  the  societies,  stations,  and  conferences,  adhering  to  the  Church  in  the  South, 
by  a  vote  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  said  societies,  stations,  and  conferences, 


183 

shall  remain  under  the  unmolested  pastoral  care  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  the 
ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  shall  in  no  wise  attempt  to  organize 
Churches  or  societies  within  the  limits  of  the  Church,  South,  nor  shall  they  attempt 
to  exercise  any  pastoral  oversight  therein ;  it  being  understood  that  the  ministry  of 
the  South  reciprocally  observe  the  same  rule  in  relation  to  stations,  societies,  and 
conferences  adhering,  by  a  vote  of  a  majority,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ; 
provided,  also,  that  this  rule  shall  apply  only  to  societies,  stations,  and  conferences 
bordering  on  the  line  of  division,  and  not  to  interior  charges,  which  shall  in  all  cases 
be  left  to  the  care  of  that  Church  within  whose  territory  they  are  situated  '' 

Here  is  a  provision  as  to  how  the  boundary  shall  be  ascertained.  It  does  not  de- 
fine it  exactly,  but  says  :  "  Here  are  Southern  delegates ;  we  are  satisfied  where  the 
boundary  shall  be,  but  there  will  be  bordering  societies  which  may  be  divided,  and  to 
provide  for  that,  we  adopt  this  article;"  and  this  article  the  bishops,  in  1845,  at- 
tempted to  carry  out.  I  think  it  shows  very  clearly  that  it  was  to  be  an  immediate 
division. 

"  2.  That  ministers,  local  and  travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame, 
attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South." 

Could  that  consist  with  the  idea  of  a  separating  and  schismatic  Church  1  If  my 
learned  friends  take  up  the  doctrines  of  their  answer  and  the  Conference  of  1848, 
and  make  this  Church  schismatic,  they  have  to  give  some  beautiful  reason  for  the 
introduction  of  this  provision.  They  could  not,  certainly,  but  be  blamed  for  uniting 
with  a  schismatic  Church.  They  would  have  committed  an  absurdity  in  sanctioning 
a  schism  which  they  had  no  right  to  sanction  in  any  way.  It  meant  to  say  to  all  the 
parties  attached  to  the  Church,  South,  that  there  should  be  no  blame  about  it — that 
they  should  be  just  as  good  Methodist  ministers  as  before.  That  is  what  we  mean 
by  an  amicable  separation,  and  treating  with  the  "  strictest  equity." 

"  3.  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  all  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  That  we  recommend  to  all  the  annual  conferences,  at  their  first  ap- 
proaching sessions,  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  so  that  the 
first  clause  shall  read  thus :  '  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book 
Concern,  nor  of  the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  other  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit 
of  the  travelling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows,  and  children,  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  upon  by  the 
votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference.'  " 

That  was  a  recommendation  in  no  respect  conditional  to  the  two  previous.  It  in- 
volves something  so  very  different  from  what  was  called  for  by  the  idea  of  separation, 
that  it  is  evident  that  its  being  found  here  was  simply  because  an  occasion  was  thus 
presented  of  having  a  question  of  this  kind  made  and  disposed  of.  The  effect  of  it 
was,  that  while  it  preserved  the  same  right  in  these  original  beneficiaries,  it  would 
allow  the  General  Conference  to  apply  that  fund  to  any  other  purpose  that  two- 
thirds  of  the  Conference  should  choose.  That  goes  widely  beyond  anything  con- 
nected with  the  separation  of  the  Church  into  two  parts.  There  had  been  difficulties 
in  the  Canada  case,  a  compromise  had  then  been  made,  and  the  body  had  been  put  in 
a  very  awkward  position  as  the  administrators  of  the  charity.  They  wished  to  avoid 
that  here.  But  they  did  not  make  this  as  a  condition  upon  which  the  Church  should 
be  separated ;  if  it  had  been  adopted,  it  would  have  had  an  effect  beyond  this 
separation. 

"  4.  That  whenever  the  annual  conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their 
members  voting  on  the  third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred  in  the  recommendation 
to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the  agents  at  New- York  and  Cincinnati  shall, 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  over  to  any  authorized  agent 


184 

or  appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should  one  be  organized,  all  notes  and  book  ac- 
counts against  the  ministers,  Church  members,  or  citizens  within  its  boundaries, 
with  authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  that 
said  agents  also  convey  to  the  aforesaid  agent  or  appointee  of  the  South,  all  the  real 
i-stati''.  and  assign  to  him  all  the  property,  including  presses,  stock,  and  all  right  and 
interest  connected  with  the  printing  establishments  at  Charleston,  Richmond,  and 
Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

It  was  in  ease  of  the  agents  that  this  was  done.  If  this  should  be  done,  then  it 
was  a  case  in  which  the  agents  needed  no  legal  protection.  They  were  trustees ;  it 
might  be  that  the  trustees  could  be  changed,  and  the  fund  dealt  with  upon  intrinsic 
right  by  representatives  of  beneficiaries  in  the  Southern  conferences  without  this,  but 
it  would  undoubtedly  be  a  case  calling  for  judicial  construction.  The  object  was  to 
make  it  easy  to  the  agents.  They  did  not  pretend  to  say  anything  about  the  matter 
of  right.  That  was  already  adjudged. 

"  5.  That  when  the  annual  conferences  shall  have  approved  the  aforesaid  change 
in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  there  shall  be  transferred  to  the  above  agent  of  the 
Southern  Church  so  much  of  the  capital  and  produce  of  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern as  will,  with  the  notes,  book  accounts,  presses,  &c.,  mentioned  in  the  last  reso- 
lution, bear  the  same  proportion  to  the  whole  property  of  said  Concern  that  the 
travelling  preachers  in  the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  travelling  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  the  division  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  num- 
ber of  travelling  preachers  in  the  forthcoming  minutes." 

As  I  remarked,  that  was  done  in  ease  of  the  agents.  The  only  thing  to  which  a 
condition  was  applied  was  the  turning  over  by  the  agents.  It  was  not  left  to  three- 
fourths  of  the  conferences  to  determine  whether  the  new  Church  should  be  formed. 
That  was  upon  the  Plan,  showing  that  it  would  be  absurd  to  base  it  upon  this  re- 
strictive article.  In  the  minutes  of  1848,  it  is  set  up  that  the  whole  of  this  Plan  was 
conditional  upon  the  passing  of  that  restrictive  article.  I  submit  upon  that  subject, 
here  and  finally,  that  by  the  first  resolution  the  decision  of  the  separation  was  left  to 
the  slaveholding  conferences,  whereas  the  restrictive  article  was  to  be  acted  upon  by 
three-fourths  of  all  the  conferences ;  and  I  submit  that  it  is  an  end  to  the  question 
of  what  the  Plan  of  Separation  meant.  It  may  be  avoided ;  but  as  to  saying  that  a 
Plan  of  Separation,  which  was  to  depend  upon  the  election  of  the  Southern  confer- 
ences, was  to  be  avoided  or  not,  according  to  the  election  of  three-fourths  of  all  the 
conferences,  I  submit  is  a  plain,  palpable  contradiction  and  absurdity. 

Now  upon  the  mode  of  operation  of  this  Plan.  It  was  for  a  division  of  the  funds. 
The  produce  of  this  fund  was  always  divided  according  to  the  numbers  returned  in 
the  minutes  of  the  annual  conferences  every  year  to  the  book-steward,  the  princi- 
pal of  the  Book  Concern.  The  number  of  preachers  would  change  exceedingly  every 
year,  and  if  we  can  ascertain  ichen  the  proportion  was  to  be  taken  by  which  this 
division  was  to  take  place,  we  ascertain  the  time  when  the  division  was  to  take  place. 
This  gives  the  most  positive  determination  of  time.  It  adds  :  "the  division  (of  the 
capital)  is  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the  number  of  travelling  preachers  in  the  forth- 
coming minutes,'' — minutes  that  were  then  prepared.  If  the  Plan  of  Division  had 
not  taken  place  then,  immediately,  it  never  could  have  taken  place  under  this  Plan, 
except  with  great  inconvenience.  I  suppose,  therefore,  in  reading  this  paper  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  contemplated  an  immediate  division. 

"  6.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the  form  of  annual  payments  of  $25,000 
per  annum,  and  specifically  in  stock  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  in  Southern  notes 
and  accounts  due  the  establishment,  and  accruing  after  the  first  transfer  mentioned 
above;  and  until  the  payments  are  made,  the  Southern  Church  shall  share  in  all  the 


185 

net  profits  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the  proportion  that  the  amount  due  them,  or  in 
arrears,  bears  to  all  the  property  of  the  Concern." 

I  submit  that  there  is  a  precision  about  that  which  looks  to  something  already  pro- 
vided. They  had  no  doubt  of  the  judgment  of  the  Southern  conferences  ;  they  had 
no  doubt  that  that  judgment  would  be  passed.  One  cannot  read  those  reports  of 
1844,  without  seeing  the  most  settled  principles  in  hostility,  which  show  that  no 
change  was  to  be  expected  until  men  shall  change  their  most  settled,  permanent  con- 
victions. They  had  no  doubt  that  the  separation  was  to  take  place. 

What  next  do  they  dol  Taking  that  doubt  of  the  continuance  of  life  which  fills 
every  preacher's  discourses — that  uncertainty  of  life-estates  which  visits  every 
lawyer  when  dealing  with  life,  what  do  they  do? 

"  7.  That  Nathan  Bangs,  George  Peck,  and  James  B.  Finley  be,  and  they  are 
hereby  appointed  commissioners  to  act  in  concert  with  the  same  number  of  commis- 
sioners appointed  by  the  Southern  organization,  (should  one  be  formed,)  to  estimate 
the  amount  which  will  fall  due  to  the  South  by  the  preceding  rule,  and  to  have  full 
powers  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangement  proposed  with  regard  to  the  divi- 
sion of  property,  should  the  separation  take  place.  And  if  by  any  means  a  vacancy 
occurs  in  this  board  of  commissioners,  the  book  committee  at  New- York  shall  fill 
said  vacancy." 

Were  these  the  gentlemen  who  were  to  live  until  the  experiment  was  tried  of  Virgi- 
nia, Georgia,  and  South  Carolina  submitting  to  have  bishops  chosen  who  might  live  not 
in  that  State,  and  who  should  be  acceptable  to  the  Northern  people  1  Was  it  that 
these  commissioners  were  to  remain  a  sort  of  immortals  until  this  thing  could  be 
tested  1  Is  it  meant  that  they  named  these  gentlemen,  men  of  age,  not  looking  to  very 
great  endurance  of  life,  but  looking  rather  to  its  uncertainty,  and  did  not  expect  the 
Plan  to  be  acted  upon  without  delay  ]  They  were  to  estimate  the  amount  which  fell 
due  to  the  South,  and  have  full  powers  to  carry  into  effect  the  whole  arrangement. 
They  were  not  to  wait  for  another  General  Conference  to  supply  a  vacancy,  but  to 
have  men  on  the  ground  for  it. 

"  8.  That  whenever  any  agents  of  the  Southern  Church  are  clothed  with  legal  au- 
thority or  corporate  power  to  act  in  the  premises,  the  agents  at  New-York  are  hereby 
authorized  and  directed  to  act  in  conference  with  said  Southern  agents,  so  as  to  give 
the  provisions  of  these  resolutions  a  legally-binding  force." 

"  A  legally-binding  force,"  without  the  action  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  annual 
conferences.  As  soon  as  the  Southern  Conference  organized  and  appointed  commis- 
sioners with  legal  authority,  that  is,  according  to  the  law  of  the  Church,  to  act  upon  the 
matter,  they  were  to  act,  and  their  acting  was  to  be  legally  binding. 

"  9.  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  meeting-houses, 
parsonages,  colleges,  schools,  conference  funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  everything  within 
the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization,  shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up  on 
the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this  resolution  can  be  of  force 
in  the  premises." 

Granting  the  most  suspensive  fact  of  that  resolution,  as  to  the  doubt  of  the  power 
to  convey  property,  yet  no  one  can  doubt  it  was  intended  to  operate  immediately  as 
a  present  relinquishment  and  abandonment  to  this  Southern  Church  of  all  that  be- 
longed to  it.  This  brings  me  to  the  notice  of  another  question — and  it  is  a  vast  ques- 
tion involved  indirectly  in  this  case — that  if  we  are  a  schismatic  Church,  every 
meeting-house  can  legally  be  taken  away  from  us  by  any  one  from  the  Northern 
Conference.  If  it  recognises  the  Southern  Church  as  a  true  Methodist  Church,  then 


186 

this  resolution  was  of  no  force,  except  merely  to  show  that  this  possession  of  that 
property  by  the  Southern  Church  was  with  the  entire  assent  of  the  Northern  breth- 
ren ;  and  with  that  sort  of  assent  they  say,  We  have  no  title  to  it,  and  therefore  this 
resolution  does  not  give  us  a  title. 

'•  10.  That  the  Church  so  formed  in  the  South  shall  have  a  common  right  to  use 
all  the  copyrights  in  possession  of  the  Book  Concerns  at  New- York  and  Cincinnati 
at  the  time  of  the  settlement  by  the  commissioners. 

"11.  That  the  book  agents  at  New- York  be  directed  to  make  such  compensation 
to  the  conferences  South,  for  their  dividend  from  the  Chartered  Fund,  as  the  com- 
missioners above  provided  for  shall  agree  upon." 

That  Chartered  Fund  was  located  in  Philadelphia,  and  held  under  charter  there. 
It  could  not  be  specifically  turned  over. 

"  12.  That  the  bishops  be  respectfully  requested  to  lay  that  part  of  this  report  re- 
quiring the  action  of  the  annual  conferences  before  them  as  soon  as  possible,  begin- 
ning with  the  New- York  Conference." 

It  has  been  asserted  in  the  Answer,  and  minutes,  and  journals  of  1848,  and  in  the 
report  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  that  all  this  document  was  conditional  upon  being 
acted  upon  by  three-fourths  of  the  conferences.  What  does  the  Plan  ask  the  bishops 
to  submit  to  the  conferences  1  The  whole  of  it  1  No ;  but  that  part  requiring  the 
action  of  the  annual  conferences.  What  part  1  The  third  resolution.  So  that  the 
idea  that  the  Plan  is  conditional  all  through,  is  contradicted  by  this  last  article, 
whereby  nothing  is  to  be  submitted  to  the  annual  conferences  by  the  bishops,  but 
that  part  which  relates  to  the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule.  The  third  reso- 
lution is  all  which  the  bishops  ever  did  submit  to  the  conferences. 

Having  drawn  your  attention  to  the  terms  of  the  Plan,  I  propose  to  go  into  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  was  adopted,  to  show  that  it  was,  and  must  be,  perma- 
nent in  its  nature. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

FOURTH  DAY— THURSDAY,  MAY  22,  1851. 

MB.  LORD, — If  your  Honours  please — I  yesterday  had  reached  that  part  of  the 
discussion  of  this  case  which  led  me  to  the  language  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  I 
had  read  that  Plan,  and  made  some  comments  upon  its  language,  to  show  that  it  was 
a  clear  assent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of  1844  to  this  separation  ;  that 
it  was  not  conditional  upon  the  assent  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  conferences  to  the 
change  in  the  sixth  restrictive  article.  My  object  at  present  is  to  consider  that  Plan 
of  Separation  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  adopted,  so  that  we  may  take 
them  into  view  as  determining  the  exigency  to  which  the  Plan  applied,  and  to  see 
from  that  whether  the  idea  of  its  being  a  contingent  thing  is  properly  admissible  ;  and 
.'tlso  to  see  whether  some  other  allegations  of  the  Answer,  which  allege  that  the 
separation  which  took  place  was  not  in  pursuance  or  in  consequence  of  pre-existing 
difficulties,  but  was  a  sort  of  fraudulent  abuse  of  the  authority  conferred  upon  the 
Southern  conferences  by  that  Plan  of  1844,  are  in  any  degree  founded  upon  the  evi- 
dence or  upon  truth.  The  parts  of  the  Answer  which  draw  these  matters  into  conside- 
ration, will  be  found  in  the  references  which  I  shall  give.  At  the  10th  folio  of  the 
Answer  they  deny 

"  That  it  was  thereupon,"  (that  is,  upon  the  idea  of  the  separation  being  ne- 
cessary,) "  as  erroneously  alleged  by  the  plaintiffs,  that  the  resolutions  which  they 
denominate  the  *  Plan  of  Separation,'  and  which  are  set  forth  in  their  bill,  were  passed 


187 

at  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  held  in  the  city  of  New- York  ;  and  these  defend- 
ants say,  that  then,  and  always  hitherto,  the  greater  portion  of  the  Church  have  not 
thought  there  was  any  sufficient  cause  for  a  separation  or  division  of  the  Church." 

Then  again,  upon  folios  16  and  18  of  the  Answer,  the  defendants  say  : — 

li  That  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  "  (that  is,  what  I  call  the  sentence  of  degra- 
dation of  Bishop  Andrew)  "  gave  offence  to  a  minority  of  the  members  of  that  Gene- 
ral Conference,  and  who  were  delegates  from  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  and  principally,  if  not  wholly,  induced  those  delegates  to  present  a  formal 
Protest  against  such  action  of  the  General  Conference,  which  was  admitted  to  record 
on  its  journal." 

They  seem  to  make  a  distinction  in  the  Answer  between  the  serious  difficulties  on 
the  subject  of  slavery,  and  the  particular  and  single  action  of  that  Conference  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

"  And  which  resolution,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  further  induced  such  dele- 
gates, (although  without  the  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  and  in  no  manner 
sanctioned  by  any  action  of  that  body,)  immediately  after  the  adjournment  of  such 
General  Conference  of  1844, — before  the  happening  of  the  contingencies  mentioned 
in  the  so-called  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  necessary  to  give  the  same  effect,  and  before 
such  delegates  had  departed  from  the  city  of  New- York, — to  address  a  circular  to 
their  constituents  and  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Church  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  therein  expressing  their  own  opinion  in  favour  of  a  separation  from  the  juris- 
diction of  the  General  Conference,  and  advising  the  annual  conferences  within  those 
States  to  elect  from  their  own  bodies,  severally,  delegates  to  a  convention,  proposed 
by  them  to  be  held  at  Louisville,  Kentucky,  in  May  following,  to  consider  and  determine 
the  matter ;  all  which  finally  led  those  annual  conferences,  or  portions  of  them,  at 
that  convention,  to  withdraw  and  separate  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 
to  renounce  and  declare  themselves  wholly  absolved  from  its  jurisdiction,  government, 
and  authority  ;  and  to  institute  a  new  and  distinct  ecclesiastical  organization,  sepa- 
rate from,  and  independent  of,  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  under  the  denomination  of  '  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,' — 
which  is  the  same  organization  mentioned  in  said  bill  of  complaint ;  and  the  plaintiffs, 
and  all  those  whom  they  professedly  represent,  are  adherents  thereof,  and  are  no 
longer  attached  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  and  these  defendants  believe 
and  submit,  that  these  proceedings  were,  in  no  part,  authorized  by  the  rules  of  govern- 
ment, or  the  constitutional  law  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  contained  in  its 
Book  of  Discipline,  but  were  in  palpable  hostility  thereto." 

Then  it  follows  with  a  declaration,  (folios  21  and  22,)  that  the  resolution 

"  In  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  instead  of  moving  to  a  secession,  called  for  due 
submission  and  respect  from  all  the  delegates  of  that  Conference,  and  all  the  minis- 
ters and  members  of  the  Church ;  and  the  defendants  upon  their  belief,  say,  that  the 
same,  and  all  the  proceedings  of  that  body  leading  thereto,  were  regular,  constitu- 
tional, and  valid  ;  that  the  voluntary  connexion  of  Bishop  Andrew  with  slavery  was 
justly  considered  by  a  majority  of  said  General  Conference,  and  by  most  of  the  min- 
isters and  members  of  the  Church,  as  '  improper  conduct ;'  and  that  every  bishop  is, 
by  a  law  of  the  Book  of  Discipline,  amenable  to  the  General  Conference,  who  are 
thereby  declared  to  '  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper  conduct,  if  they  see  it 
necessary  ;'  and  that  such  resolution  and  proceedings,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
were  in  due  accordance  with  the  good  government  of  the  Church." 

Then,  upon  folio  23,  they  say,  after  referring  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  that  it  was 


"  By  a  majority  of  over  three-fourths  of  the  entire  body,  although,  as  these  defend- 
ants state,  such  resolutions  were,  in  respect  of  their  operation  or  effect,  provisional 
and  contingent,  were  occasioned  by,  and  based  upon,  the  said  Declaration  of  the  South- 
ern delegates,  and  were  intended  only  to  meet  the  future  emergency  predicted  therein, 
should  the  same  arise ;  and  that  such  resolutions  were  connected  with,  and  preceded 
by,  the  statement  and  preamble  embodied  in  the  report  of  the  said  committee  of 


188 

nine,  appointed  by  the  General  Conference  to  consider  and  report  on  such  Declara- 
tion— which  report  was  adopted  by  the  Conference,  as  will  appear  by  its  printed 
journal  (pp.  130,  137) — and  which  statement  and  preamble  are  to  be  taken,  in  con- 
nexion with  said  resolutions,  as  a  part  of  said  report  thus  adopted,  and  to  which  the 
defendants  crave  leave  to  refer  as  a  part  of  this  answer.  But  these  defendants  are 
advised  by  counsel,  that  the  said  resolutions,  embodied  in  such  report  of  the  commit- 
tee of  nine,  called  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  were  not  duly  or  legally  passed,  and  that 
the  General  Conference  of  1844  had  no  competent,  nor  any  valid  power  or  authority  to 
pass  or  adopt  the  said  resolutions,  called  the  '  Plan  of  Separation,'  or  any  or  either 
of  them,  except  that  portion  thereof  comprising  the  recommendation  to  the  annual 
conferences  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  ;  and  these  defendants  are  also 
advised  by  counsel,  that  the  last-named  resolutions,  when  adopted,  were  null  and 
void,  and  without  any  binding  force  or  validity,  except  in  the  matter  of  such 
recommendation  merely." 

Then  they  go  on  and  give  a  history  of  the  Church.     Again,  upon  folio  34  : — 

"  And  these  defendants,  further  answering,  submit,  as  further  advised  by  counsel, 
that  even  had  the  so-called  '  Plan  of  Separation '  been  constitutional  or  valid,  it 
merely  provided  a  prospective  plan,  which,  without  the  happening  of  certain  future 
conditions,  or,  on  the  failure  of  which  conditions,  or  either  of  them,  could  never  have, 
by  its  express  terms,  and,  as  defendants  say,  was  never  intended  to  have,  any  force 
or  validity.  And  these  defendants  expressly  aver,  that  these  conditions  have  not 
happened  ;  and  they,  therefore,  further  insist  and  submit,  that  the  said  so-called 
'  Plan  of  Separation,'  has  always  been  inoperative  ;  has  never  had  any  force  or  va- 
lidity ;  and  is  absolutely  null  and  void." 

Then,  upon  folio  42,  after  stating  that  we  had  made  this  organization  at  the  South, 
under  this  very  nugatory,  unconstitutional,  conditional  plan,  they  say, — 

"Wherefore,  these  defendants  insist  and  submit,  that  the  'Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,'  exists  as  a  separate  ecclesiastical  communion,  solely  by  the  result, 
and  in  virtue  of  the  acts  and  doings  of  the  individual  bishops,  ministers,  and  mem- 
bers attached  to  such  Church,  South,  proceeding  in  the  premises  upon  their  own 
responsibility ;  and  that  such  bishops,  ministers,  and  members,  have  voluntarily 
withdrawn  themselves  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  have  renounced 
all  their  rights  and  privileges  in  her  communion  and  under  her  government." 

They  then  set  up  what  they  consider  violations  of  the  Plan,  in  some  interference  by 
preachers  from  the  South,  with  societies  lying  north  of  the  border  ;  their  idea  being 
that  this  Plan  was  in  all  its  parts  absolutely  conditional,  so  that  if  any  single  grain 
failed  to  be  delivered  rightly,  according  to  the  condition,  it  forfeited  the  whole. 
And  then,  as  a  climax  to  the  force  of  this  argument,  they  declare,  in  the  Answer, 
that  the  General  Conference,  which  met  in  May,  1848,  consisting  solely  of  members 
of  the  Northern  annual  conferences,  declared,  that  this  Conference  of  1844  had  no 
power  to  grant  the  division  ;  that  is  to  say,  these  twenty  Northern  conferences,  in 
the  absence  of  the  thirteen,  fourteen,  or  fifteen  Southern,  passed  a  solemn  resolu- 
tion, that  the  act  of  the  Conference  of  1844  was  nugatory,  was  null  and  void,  with 
no  effect ;  and  in  consequence  of  all  this,  we  are  seceders.  I  read  now  from 
folio  58  :— 

"  They  have  voluntarily  withdrawn  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
separated  themselves  from  its  principles  and  government ;  and  have  thereby  re- 
nounced and  forfeited  all  right  and  claim,  at  law  or  in  equity,  to  any  portion  of  the 
funds  and  property  in  this  cause." 

Your  Honours  might  have  supposed,  in  using  the  word  "  forfeiture  "  so  often  as  I 
did  yesterday,  that  I  was  rather  stigmatizing  the  argument  on  the  other  side,  and 
presenting  it  in  a  light  they  did  not  adopt.  Now  you  see  they  put  it  upon  the  dis- 
tinct ground  of  forfeiture,  by  which  we  understand  a  penal  infliction  in  its  character, 


189 

though  it  be  a  stipulation  ;  for  the  very  idea  of  forfeiture,  as  distinguished  from 
specific  execution  or  compensation  in  damages  for  the  want  of  it,  is,  that  you  im- 
pose something  of  much  higher  consequence  than  a  mere  result  of  a  breach  of  condi- 
tion which  insures  the  performance  of  it,  and  which  also  supposes  you  have  some 
existing  right  in  that  which  you  forfeit.  They,  therefore,  go,  in  that  case  distinctly, 
on  the  ground  that  by  our  acting  under  this  Plan  of  Separation,  we,  having  pre- 
viously a  right,  did  by  some  matter  not  co-equal,  not  co-extensive  with  the  character 
of  the  damage  or  injury  to  them,  draw  upon  us  the  serious  consequences  of  forfeiting 
a  right — such  a  right  as  I  had  the  honour  to  discuss  before  you  yesterday. 

Now  I  am  not  only  to  consider  the  language, — supposing  that  there  may  be  any- 
thing in  that  which  would  admit  either  of  its  being  unconditional  or  conditional, — hut 
I  propose  now  to  look  at  the  exigency  of  the  case,  the  existing  state  of  things  at  the 
tune  these  resolutions  were  passed,  to  see  whether  it  was  a  contingent,  a  future,  an 
unlikely  thing,  and  one  regarded  merely  as  possible  ;  or  whether,  in  fact,  it  was  really 
and  truly  certain,  that  is,  so  certain  as  to  scarcely  leave  the  expectation  of  anything 
contrary,  so  that  the  not  happening  would  be  the  matter  which  would  surprise  us  ; 
and  to  see,  also,  whether,  under  these  circumstances,  this  was  a  matter  done  hastily» 
or  in  any  manner  as  an  abuse  of  the  authority  granted  to  organize  as  a  separate 
Church. 

The  first  question  was  this  subject  of  slavery,  which  I  certainly  do  not  mean  to 
discuss  here  in  any  extensive  way,  my  object  being  to  show,  that  upon  this  subject, 
whichever  party  in  this  Church  may  be  right  upon  its  discipline  or  doctrine,  there 
was  such  a  disagreement  as  to  the  discipline,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Church 
was  to  deal  with  it,  that  without  imputing  blame  to  the  one  or  the  other  party,  it  had 
then  become  so  ripe  that  the  body  could  not  act  together — a  body  acting  not  merely 
as  a  body  to  resist  external  violence  on  it,  and  held  together  by  a  sense  of  self- 
preservation  in  the  nature  of  political  union  or  league,  but  as  a  body  whose  object 
was  to  act  by  voluntary  co-operation  upon  the  minds  of  people  who  were  to  receive 
truth  from  peace-speaking  men.  I  propose  to  show  whether  that  state  of  things  did 
not  come  to  pass,  in  which,  by  reason  of  what  had  existed  prior  to  1844,  and  which 
was  then  simply  developed, — whether  that  state  of  irreconcilable  disagreement,  not 
hostility  in  the  breaking  of  friendly  relations  of  gentlemen,  but  a  hostility  as  to 
principles,  and  the  mode  of  carrying  out  what  may  be  considered  the  policy  of  this 
Church, — did  not  exist  which  made  it  suicidal  to  go  in  this  state  to  attempt  the 
achieving  of  anything  upon  ignorance,  vice,  or  irreligion  in  any  part  of  the  world. 

On  this  subject  of  slavery,  the  position  of  this  Church  was  ever  conflicting.  It 
began  upon  the  first  organization  of  the  Church.  Mr.  Wesley  wrote  his  letter  in 
1784,  and  it  was  received  at  the  Christmas  conference  in  that  year.  Then,  under 
the  influence  of  Dr.  Coke,  a  gentleman  of  education  from  Oxford,  the  widest  principle 
of  emancipation  was  adopted,  taking  it  from  the  rule  of  discipline  of  the  United 
Societies,  that  no  one  should  be  engaged  in  buying  or  selling  men  for  the  purpose  of 
enslaving  them.  He  attempted  to  bring  in  that  speculative  truth,  which  was  clear 
in  his  own  mind,  and  to  make  it  practical  in  a  country  with  which  it  was  perfectly 
evident  he  had  but  a  slight  acquaintance,  and  in  regard  to  which  it  very  soon  ap- 
peared that  his  ministrations  could  not  be  successful.  He  enacted  rules  exceed- 
ingly strong  and  exclusive  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  but  even  in  them  there  came  in, 
of  necessity,  a  proviso,  which  definitely  fixed  the  policy  of  this  Church  upon  this 
subject.  Those  rules  are  prefaced  by  an  acknowledgment  that  it  was  introducing  a 
new  term  of  communion  into  the  Church,  showing  how  great  the  power  of  this  Con- 
ference was.  It  says  : — 

"  We  are  deeply  conscious  of  the  impropriety  of  making  new  terms  of  communion 


190 

for  a  religious  society  already  established,  excepting  on  the  most  pressing  occasion  ; 
;ind  such  we  esteem  the  practice  of  holding  our  fellow-creatures  in  slavery.  \Ve 
view  it  as  contrary  to  the  golden  law  of  God,  on  which  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets,"  &c. 

They  provide  that  every  member  of  the  society  who  has  slaves  in  his  possession, 
shall  execute  and  record  an  instrument  of  manumission. 
The  third  of  these  rules  is  : — 

"  In  consideration  that  these  rules  form  a  new  term  of  communion,  every  person 
concerned,  who  will  not  comply  with  them,  shall  have  liberty  quietly  to  withdraw 
himself  from  our  society  within  the  twelve  months  succeeding  the  notice  given  as 
aforesaid  ;  otherwise  the  assistant  shall  exclude  him  in  the  society." 

The  fifth  rule  is  : — 

"  No  person  holding  slaves  shall  in  future  be  admitted  into  society,  or  to  the 
Lord's  supper,  till  he  previously  complies  with  these  rules  concerning  slavery." 

And  in  what  follows,  the  whole  system  showed  itself  to  be  lame  and  imperfect,  and 
that  it  never  could  be  carried  out : — 

"  N.  B.  These  rules  are  to  affect  the  members  of  our  society  no  farther  than 
as  they  are  consistent  with  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which  they  reside." 

This  clause  never  could  have  been  introduced  by  the  man  who  introduced  the 
rest  of  the  resolutions.  It  was  yielding  to  the  necessity  of  the  government,  and 
the  condition  of  the  people  in  which  this  society  was  expected  to  have,  and  where  it 
has  had  great  operation.  You  will  see  that  this  society  in  all  its  dealings  on  this 
subject,  in  the  midst  of  its  fluctuations  as  to  rules,  has  always  maintained  the  same 
principle.  We  hold  slavery  to  be  a  great  evil ;  and  I  am  free  to  say,  that  that  decla- 
ration is  held  as  well  by  gentlemen  of  the  South,  as  by  those  of  the  North  ;  but  the 
difficulty  was  how  to  deal  with  it.  Some  of  the  gentlemen  said  then,  and  say  now, 
and  have  always  said,  this  is  a  thing  which,  in  the  nature  of  the  government  under 
which  we  live,  and  the  character  of  the  institution,  you  cannot  destroy  by  extirpa- 
tion, that  is,  by  any  immediate  measures  directly  addressed  to  it ;  you  must  destroy 
it  by  enlightening  both  master  and  slave,  inducing  the  master  to  love  the  liberty  of 
the  slave,  and  the  slave  to  be  fit  for  the  enjoyment  of  liberty.  The  others  took  the 
ground  that  this  is  a  distinct  moral  offence,  like  any  other  crime — like  stealing — and 
shall  not  be  tolerated  at  all. 

Here,  at  the  outset,  in  the  strongest  declaration  on  the  subject  ever  contained  in  a 
Methodist  Discipline,  you  have  a  deference  to  the  law  of  the  country  incorporated. 
Even  with  this  qualification  it  was  modified  and  abandoned  next  year.  This  system 
was  found  so  utterly  Utopian,  so  much  like  the  constitution  of  Mr.  Locke  for  South 
Carolina,  that  I  venture  to  say  it  was  never  practised  upon  ;  and  it  was  one  other 
example  of  the  folly  of  a  speculative  man  in  one  country,  undertaking  to  regulate  the 
practical  operations  of  civil  and  domestic,  as  well  as  of  political  life,  in  another  coun- 
try with  which  he  had  but  a  very  slight  acquaintance.  I  do  not  mean  to  go  through 
with  any  detail  on  this  subject ;  suffice  it  to  say,  that  in  1785,  experience — and  behold 
how  short  an  experience  it  was — less  than  one  year  ! — convinced  this  society  that  those 
rules,  even  with  the  modification  made  by  somebody  who  understood  the  subject 
better  than  Dr.  Coke,  were  utterly  impracticable  ;  it  would  have  been  the  end  of 
Methodism  in  that  part  of  the  country  to  which  it  had  the  greatest  reference.  In 
1796,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  yearly  conference.  In  1800  a  more  distinct 
reference  to  the  subject  of  the  local  law  was  made.  In  1804,  the  rules  were  still  fur- 


191 

ther  modified,  and  the  very  striking  provision  introduced,  that  the  preachers  were  to 
instruct  the  masters  to  allow  their  slaves  instruction,  and  teach  the  slaves  obedience 
to  '-aeir  masters.  By  the  Conference  of  1808,  the  subject  was  left  to  the  manage- 
ment of  the  annual  conferences,  and  that  seems  also  to  have  been  the  state  of  it 
under  the  Conference  of  1812.  In  1816  we  have  the  following  introduced  : — 

"  No  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  hereafter, 
where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipation  and  permit 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom." 

There  you  see  a  distinct  provision  for  the  case  of  any  official  station,  not  except- 
ing a  bishop,  preacher,  or  elder  ;  no  one  possessing  slaves  should  hold  office  where 
the  laws  permitted  emancipation  ;  and  the  qualification  is  as  extensive  as  the  rule. 
This  was  the  only  objection  on  the  subject.  If  you  are  a  slaveholder  you  shall  not 
be  admitted  to  any  official  station,  if  the  law  allows  of  emancipation.  If  the  law 
does  not  sanction  it,  the  article  does  not  apply  ;  in  other  words,  it  directly  sanctions 
it.  In  1824  the  following  was  added  : — 

"  All  our  preachers  shall  prudently  enforce  upon  our  members  the  necessity  of 
teaching  their  slaves  to  read  the  word  of  God ;  and  to  allow  them  time  to  attend 
upon  the  public  worship  of  God  on  our  regular  days  of  Divine  service." 

In  1840,  you  will  see  that  the  agitation  had  become  extreme.  So  far  from  slavery 
not  being  the  subject  of  agitation,  it  was  a  subject  of  the  most  serious  agitation,  as 
you  will  see  by  the  minutes ;  and  upon  this  subject,  the  Reply  to  the  Protest,  which 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  put  in,  gives  us  something  instructive.  If  I  wished 
to  show  the  irreconcilable  state  of  opinion  in  this  Church  upon  this  subject — I  do 
not  mean  hostility  between  party  and  party,  but  the  irreconcilable  state  of  opinion — 
which  would  prevent  this  Church  from  acting  in  a  body,  I  would  call  for  this  Answer 
to  the  Protest  as  the  most  decisive  proof  on  the  subject. — P.  113  of  the  first  of  the 
Proofs.  % 

"  It  is  known  and  acknowledged  by  all  Southern  brethren,  that  Bishop  Andrew 
was  nominated  by  the  delegates  from  the  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  Conferences, 
as  a  Southern  candidate  for  whom  Northern  men  might  vote,  without  doing  violence 
to  their  principles,  as  he  was  no  slaveholder." 

Here  you  have  a  most  distinct  avowal  that  it  was  a  violence  to  their  principles  to 
Delect  as  a  bishop  a  man  with  those  principles  which  the  Church  most  distinctly  in 
Its  Discipline  tolerated.  Let  us  see  whether  in  the  history  of  that  principle  it  showed 
any  diminution  of  growth.  The  "  Reply  "  continues  : — 

"  Bishop  Andrew  himself  perfectly  understood  the  ground  of  his  election,  and  often 
said  he  was  indebted  to  his  poverty  for  his  promotion.  Since  the  year  1832,  the 
anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the  Church,  as  well  as  in  the  whole  civilized  world,  has 
constantly  and  rapidly  gained  ground ;  and  within  the  last  year  or  two  it  has  been 
roused  to  a  special  and  most  earnest  opposition  to  the  introduction  of  a  slaveholder 
into  the  episcopal  office." 

What  do  the  gentlemen  mean  when  they  say  there  was  no  difficulty  on  this  sub- 
ject prior  to  18441  What  was  it  in  18321  "The  anti-slavery  sentiment  in  the 
Church,"  that  is,  in  their  Church,  "  and  in  the  whole  civilized  world  has  been  con- 
stantly and  rapidly  gaining  ground,  and  within  the  last  year  or  two,"  that  is  prior  to 
1844,  "  it  has  been  roused  to  a  special  and  most  earnest  opposition."  "Roused ;"  that 
is  to  say,  men  have  gone  about  taunting  and  stimulating  each  other  upon  the  subject, 
and,  as  a  matter  of  conscience,  to  rouse  this  feeling,  and  they  tell  us  that  their  principles 
were  settled  against  this  institution,  which  had  been  provided  for  in  their  constitution, 


192 

so  that  the  anti-slavery  sentiment  became  roused  and  more  decided.  And  pray,  let 
me  know  whin  it  has  become  more  quiet  or  more  peaceable  since  1832,  or  more 
likely  to  be  assimilated  by  living  in  close  juxtaposition  with  the  opposite  sentiment. 
Yet  they  tell  us  that  in  1844  there  was  no  real  difficulty,  and  that  it  was  all  made  by 
these  gentlemen  declaring  that  there  was  a  difficulty,  thus  stimulating  their  consti- 
tuents to  make  it  one.  This,  they  say,  was  the  case  in  1844.  We  see  what  it  was 
in  1832  :— 

"  The  subject  was  discussed  everywhere,  and  the  dreaded  event  (that  is,  Bishop 
Andrew  being  a  slaveholder  in  any  form)  universally  deprecated  as  the  most  fearful 
calamity  that  ever  threatened  the  Church." 

What  a  state  of  feeling  was  this  in  which  the  two  bodies  of  this  Church  were  to 
go  on  together  ! — two  bodies  whose  particular  notions  had  been  provided  for  in  the 
Book  of  Discipline, — in  the  North,  where  emancipation  was  practicable,  the  rule  was 
absolute  that  it  should  be  performed ;  in  the  South,  where  it  was  not  practicable,  the 
rule  was  that  it  need  not  be  complied  with.  Here  you  find  parties  writing  a  Reply  to 
a  Protest  in  1844,  which  was  to  be  the  manifesto  of  the  majority  of  that  Conference, 
and  they  tell  us  that  they  deprecated  this  thing  as  the  most  fearful  calamity  which 
ever  threatened  a  Church,  and  yet  they  tell  us  in  the  Answer  that  they  consider  all 
the  difficulty  arose  from  the  Declaration  of  these  delegates,  and  they  went  and  stimu- 
lated the  opposition  out  of  which  grew  the  organization  of  this  Church,  and  it  was 
not  owing  to  any  preceding  difficulties. 

Now  turn  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  1840,  on  page  56  of  the  first  of 
the  Proofs.  "May  2d;"  these  Conferences  all  began  the  first  of  May.  They  had 
hardly  got  seated,  before ' 

"  MAY  2. — 0.  Scott,  of  the  New-England  Conference,  presented  a  petition  from 
persons  residing  in  New-York,  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  On  the  presenting  of  this 
petition,  J.  Early  moved  the  appointment  of  a  standing  committee  on  slavery,  to 
whom  all  papers,  petitions,  and  memorials  upon  that  subject  shall  be  referred. 
Adopted.  Ordered  that  the  committee  consist  of  twenty-eight  members,  one  from 
each  annual  conference,  and  appointed  by  the  respective  delegations." 

Look  at  that,  and  see  if  this  Church  did  not  then  find  that  that  was  a  vast  and 
terrible  difficulty  for  them  to  deal  with,  and  that  they  needed  to  deal  with  it  not  by  a 
committee  of  a  few  prudent,  discreet  men,  but  by  a  committee  which  should  em- 
brace one  member  from  every  one  of  the  conferences  of  their  Church.  Then, 
again  : — 

"  MAY  8. — E.  Dorsey  presented  the  memorial  of  the  stewards  and  others  of  West- 
moreland circuit,  Baltimore  Conference,  complaining  of  the  action  of  the  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference,  in  refusing  to  elect  to  ordination  local  preachers,  on  the  single 
ground  of  their  being  slaveholders." 

Surely,  that  was  not  a  fancy ;  that  was  a  substantial  difficulty.  Here,  in  West- 
moreland county,  in  Virginia,  local  preachers  were  refused  to  be  ordained  on  the 
ground  that  they  were  connected  with  slavery,  when  the  very  provision  of  the  Disci- 
pline on  that  subject  left  every  one  free  to  be  elected  to  any  official  station  in  the 
Church,  in  the  Southern  country,  if  emancipation  was  impracticable,  although  he  was 
a  slaveholder.  To  whom  were  these  preachers  to  address  themselves  1  To  vast 
audiences  of  slaves  and  masters — and  were  they  to  be  addressed  by  a  foreign  minis- 
try ;  a  ministry  who  held  the  very  institution  in  the  midst  of  which  they  were  walk- 
ing, as  a  thing  so  offensive  that  it  would  defile  a  man  and  unfit  him  for  the  sacred 
garb  1  That  is  the  state  of  the  thing  here  indicated  ;  and  if  that  was  the  state  of  the 
thing  in  a  conference  so  far  South  as  Baltimore,  calling  itself,  I  believe,  "The 


193 

Breakwater  Conference,"  what  was  to  be  supposed  to  be  the  general  state  of  things 
in  that  Church  1     The  minutes  continue  : — 

"  The  memorial  was  read,  and  ineffectual  efforts  made  to  procure  other  reference. 
After  discussion  it  was,  on  motion,  referred  to  a  select  committee  of  nine,  to  consider 
and  report  thereon. 

"May  13. — On  motion  of  J.  A.  Collins,  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  judi- 
ciary, of  1836,  in  relation  to  a  memorial  from  Westmoreland  and  Lancaster  circuits, 
Baltimore  Conference,  was  referred  to  a  committee  raised  on  the  memorial  from 
Westmoreland  circuit  to  this  Conference. 

He  takes  up  an  old  memorial  on  that  subject,  left  in  1836,  and  not  disturbed  from 
that  time.  They  tell  us  in  the  Reply,  that  this  anti-slavery  feeling  in  1832  became 
strong,  and  it  was  increasing,  not  only  in  the  Church,  but  in  the  civilized  world.  In 
1840  you  have  applications  upon  the  subject,  treating  it  as  an  existing  evil ;  and  you 
find  members  of  the  body,  when  that  subject  comes  to  be  dealt  with,  digging  up  a 
memorial  presented  in  1836  on  the  same  subject,  and  referring  it  to  the  same  commit- 
tee. May  21st,  Mr.  Bangs,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Slavery,  presented  a 
report,  which  was  read.  O.  Scott  stated  the  minority  of  the  committee  had  a  report 
to  present ;  the  report  of  the  majority,  and  also  that  of  the  minority,  were  laid  on  the 
table.  On  motion,  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Slavery  was  taken  up.  Then  we 
have  a  very  slight  circumstance  to  be  sure,  but  indicating  the  character  of  this 
difficulty : — 

"  0.  Scott,  rising  to  speak,  and  intimating  that  he  would  probably  extend  his 
remarks  beyond  fifteen  minutes,  it  was,  on  motion,  resolved  to  suspend  the  rule  re- 
stricting a  speaker  to  fifteen  minutes,  so  as  to  permit  brother  Scott  to  proceed  at  his 
own  discretion." 

This,  then,  was  no  trifling  subject.  Brother  Scott,  I  suppose,  in  ordinary  cases, 
dealt  with  the  usual  brevity,  and  fifteen  minutes  were  enough  to  pour  him  out  ;  but 
upon  this  subject  his  depth  and  fulness  were  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  fifteen 
minutes'  rule. 

"  After  brother  Scott  had  proceeded  some  time  with  his  remarks,  he  gave  way  for 
a  motion  to  adjourn,  which  prevailed  ;  and  Conference  adjourned,  to  meet  to-morrow 
morning  at  half-past  eight  o'clock. 

"  Friday  morning,  May  22. — Conference  proceeded  to  the  consideration  of  the 
unfinished  business  of  yesterday,  it  being  the  first  resolution  accompanying  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  Slavery.  The  discussion  was  renewed. 

"  On  motion,  Conference  resolved,  that  when  it  adjourn,  it  adjourn  to  meet  this 
afternoon  at  three  o'clock." 

On  ordinary  occasions,  I  suppose,  these  gentlemen  took  the  afternoon  for  social 
intercourse  ;  probably  dined  together ;  but  brother  Scott  and  slavery  had  now  taken 
a  degree  of  interest,  which  threw  these  mundane  considerations  quite  into  the  shade, 
and  on  they  went  in  the  afternoon  : — 

"  During  the  debate,  brother  Crowder  being  on  the  floor,  and  having  spoken  fifteen 
minutes,  a  motion  was  made  that  he  have  liberty  to  proceed  with  and  conclude  his 
remarks.  For  this,  a  substitute  was  moved  in  these  words,  That  the  rule  restricting 
speaking  to  fifteen  minutes  be  suspended  during  the  discussion  of  the  subject  before 
the  Conference.  Lost." 

They  had  the  experiment  of  two  absolutions  of  the  rule,  and  that  seemed  to  satisfy 
them.  Then  a  report  was  made,  which  took  a  course,  which  is  to  my  mind  more  dis- 
tinctly indicative  of  the  gravity  and  difficulty  of  the  subject,  than  any  other  thing 
which  the  report  could  have  contained.  Here  were  two  parties,  which,  it  was  evident, 
never  could  be  satisfied  by  a  report  of  the  committee  which  should  adopt  the  senti- 

13 


194 

ments  of  one  or  the  other  ;  and  what  did  they  do  1  Your  Honours  will  find  in  this 
Methodist  body  no  small  degree  of  talent,  and  also  some  adroitness.  They  adopted 
a  report  which  effectually  declared  the  principle,  that  this  Baltimore  Conference  was 
altogether  wrong  in  the  Westmoreland  matter — that  connexion  with  slavery  was  no 
objection  to  official  standing  in  the  Methodist  Church,  in  States  where  emancipation 
was  impossible.  "  But  how  do  we  know,"  said  they,  "  that  it  was  done  on  that  ground  ?" 
Nobody  doubted  it ;  nobody  denied  it.  It  was  perfectly  palpable  ;  but  it  was  not  on 
the  minutes.  They  avoided  the  difficulty,  and  satisfied  both  parties.  They  refused 
to  disturb  the  action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  because  it  would  infringe  on  the 
freedom  of  this  conference,  in  passing  upon  the  character  of  the  ministers  proposed 
for  ordination,  if  they  compelled  them  to  put  down  their  reasons ;  and  as  they  could  not 
tell  by  the  record  that  that  was  their  reason,  they  would  not  disturb  the  report.  That 
was  to  satisfy  the  Baltimore  Conference  and  the  North  ;  and  then  to  the  South  they 
say,  if  that  was  the  reason,  then  it  was  wrong.  Exactly  telling  how  the  man  would 
have  swapped,  if  he  had  had  a  horse. 

It  was  exactly  a  report  indicating  a  state  of  things  in  that  Church  in  1840,  which 
called  from  their  wisest  men,  their  most  peaceful  men,  measures  the  most  careful, 
adroit,  and  temporizing,  so  far  as  should  be  consistent  with  truth,  and  without  a 
violation  of  distinct  and  clear  duty.  These  gentlemen  found  it  was  a  subject  they 
could  not  manage.  They  had  to  temporize  ;  they  had  to  satisfy  both  parties,  by 
saying  to  one,  we  cannot  reverse  your  judgment,  and  to  the  other,  if  the  judgment 
was  on  the  ground  you  say  it  was,  it  was  all  wrong.  Can  anything  more  clearly 
indicate  the  character  of  the  irreconcilable  difficulty  ;  that  showed  it  was  vain  to  hope 
or  expect  submission  to  a  decree  on  that  subject  in  that  Conference  1  I  submit  that  it 
was  a  most  palpable  exhibition  of  the  difficulty  ;  and  when  this  Answer  says,  that  in 
1844  there  had  been  no  difficulty  before  that  time  which  rendered  a  separation 
likely,  or  a  subject  of  consideration,  it  seems  to  me  many  things  have  been  overlook- 
ed, and  that  it  has  been  a  thing  said  in  the  way  of  argument  in  presenting  the  case, 
rather  than  as  an  averment  of  the  truth.  Indeed,  it  is  not  averred  in  the  Answer  upon 
the  knowledge  of  the  gentlemen,  but  I  think  there  is  a  qualifying  declaration,  informed 
or  advised  by  counsel,  or  something  of  that  sort.  I  submit  it  stands  proved  that  the 
difficulty  then  was  great  and  irreconcilable. 

Upon  p.  58  of  our  first  book  of  Proofs,  is  the  bishops'  address,  with  which  that 
Conference  commenced.  It  appeared  that  in  1840  this  subject  had  already  led  to  a 
partial  dismemberment  of  the  Church.  I  will  read  a  part  of  the  address  : — 

"  It  is  justly  due  to  a  number  of  the  annual  conferences,  in  which  a  majority,  or  a 
very  respectable  minority  of  the  members  are  professedly  abolitionists,  to  say  that 
they  occupy  a  very  different  ground,  and  pursue  a  very  different  course,  from  those 
of  their  brethren  who  have  adopted  ultra  principles  and  measures  in  this  unfortunate, 
and,  we  think,  unprofitable  controversy.  The  result  of  the  action  had  in  such  con- 
ferences, on  the  resolution  of  the  New-England  Conference,  recommending  a  very 
important  change  in  our  general  rule  on  slavery,  is  satisfactory  proof  of  this  fact,  and 
affords  us  strong  and  increasing  confidence  that  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church 
are  not  to  be  materially  affected  by  this  exciting  subject.  Many  of  the  preachers, 
who  were  favourably  disposed  to  the  cause  of  abolition,  when  they  saw  the  extent  to 
which  it  was  designed  to  carry  these  measures,  and  the  inevitable  consequences  of 
their  prosecution,  came  to  a  pause,  reflected,  and  declined  their  co-operation.  They 
clearly  perceived  that  the  success  of  the  measures  would  result  in  the  division  of  the 
Church  ;  and  for  such  an  event  they  were  not  prepared." 

I  beg  leave  to  comment  upon  this.  These  gentlemen  saw  the  result  of  the  aboli- 
tion measures  would  be  the  division  of  the  Church,  and  for  that  they  were  not  pre- 
pared. And  what  do  the  bishops  say  these  gentlemen  did  1  They  exercised  for- 

13* 


195 

bearance.  If  they  did  not  forbear,  they  saw  it  would  lead  to  a  dissolution  of  this 
Church.  Here  is  a  plain  intimation  of  the  danger  directly  before  them,  and  the 
means  of  avoiding  it,  which  means  peace-loving  people  had  adopted  with  the  view 
of  avoiding  the  danger.  These  bishops  hoped,  and  spoke  from  hope,  that  they  would 
be  continued,  and  then  the  danger  of  separation  might  be  avoided.  But  every  one 
must  see  in  this  address,  that  if  this  subject  continued  to  be  agitated,  the  inevitable 
consequence  would  be  a  division  of  the  Church.  This  is  an  official  document,  de- 
claring what  has  since  occurred,  in  terms  almost  prophetic.  If  the  difficulty  existed, 
where  is  their  "  answer,"  in  which  they  say  there  never  was  a  difficulty  justifying  a 
contingent  separation  growing  out  of  it.  The  bishops,  speaking  from  the  hopes  of 
good  men,  go  on  to  say  : — 

"  They  have  no  disposition  to  criminate  their  brethren  in  the  South,  who  are  un- 
avoidably connected  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  or  to  separate  from  them,  on  that 
account.  It  is  believed  that  men  of  ardent  temperament,  whose  zeal  may  have  been 
somewhat  in  advance  of  their  knowledge  and  discretion,  have  made  such  advances  in 
the  abolition  enterprise  as  to  produce  a  re-action.  A  few  preachers  and  members, 
disappointed  in  their  expectations,  and  despairing  of  the  success  of  their  cause  in  the 
Methodist  Church,  have  withdrawn  from  our  fellowship,  and  connected  themselves 
with  associations  more  congenial  with  their  views  and  feelings  ;  and  others,  in  similar 
circumstances,  may  probably  follow  their  example.  But  we  rejoice  in  believing  that 
these  secessions  will  be  very  limited,  and  that  the  great  body  of  Methodists  in  these 
States  will  continue  as  they  have  been,  one  and  inseparable." 

In  other  words,  it  is  now  evident  these  two  principles  cannot  coexist  in  this  Church. 
Either  this  business  of  abolition  must  cease  to  be  agitated  and  talked  of,  or  there 
must  be  secession.  There  has  already  been  the  secession  of  ultra  gentlemen  from 
the  Northern  conferences,  because  they  will  not  go  far  enough,  and  everybody  sees,  if 
this  thing  continues,  separation  is  inevitable  ;  and  the  bishops  hoped,  with  this  thing 
laid  before  the  Church,  with  the  pastoral  admonition  and  communication,  that  quiet 
would  ensue.  Again  they  say : — 

"  Rules  have  been  made  from  time  to  time,  regulating  the  sale,  and  purchase,  and 
holding  of  slaves,  with  reference  to  the  different  laws  of  the  States  where  slavery  is 
tolerated  ;  which,  upon  the  experience  of  the  great  difficulty  of  administering  them, 
and  the  unhappy  consequence  both  to  masters  and  servants,  have  been  as  often 
changed  or  repealed.  These  important  facts,  which  form  prominent  features  of  our 
past  history  as  a  Church,  may  properly  lead  us  to  inquire  for  that  course  of  action  in 
the  future,  which  may  be  best  calculated  to  preserve  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
whole  body,  promote  the  greatest  happiness  of  the  slave-population,  and  advance 
generally,  in  the  slaveholding  community  of  our  country,  the  humane  and  hallowing 
influence  of  our  holy  religion.  We  cannot  withhold  from  you  at  this  eventful  period, 
the  solemn  conviction  of  our  minds,  that  no  new  ecclesiastical  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  at  this  time,  will  have  a  tendency  to  accomplish  these  most  desirable 
objects.  And  we  are  fully  persuaded,  that,  as  a  body  of  Christian  ministers,  we  shall 
accomplish  the  greatest  good  by  directing  our  individual  and  united  efforts,  in  the 
spirit  of  the  first  teachers  of  Christianity,  to  bring  both  master  and  servant  under 
the  sanctifying  influence  of  the  principles  of  that  Gospel  which  teaches  the  duties  of 
every  relation,  and  enforces  the  faithful  discharge  of  them  by  the  strongest  conceiv 
able  motives.  Do  we  aim  at  the  amelioration  of  the  condition  of  the  slave  1  How 
can  we  so  effectually  accomplish  this,  in  our  calling  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  as  by  employing  our  influence  to  bring  both  him  and  his  master  to  a  saving 
knowledge  of  the  grace  of  God,  and  to  a  practical  observance  of  those  relative  duties 
so  clearly  prescribed  in  the  writings  of  the  inspired  apostles  1" 

Now,  I  submit  to  the  good  sense  and  fan-  judgment  of  every  reader  of  that  address, 
if  it  was  not  the  action  of  the  nurse  stepping  about  softly  in  the  sick  chamber,  where 
the  patient  lay  in  that  state  in  which  noise  might  destroy  him  ;  and  whether  the  whole 
aspect  of  it  does  not  import  that  here  was  a  dangerous  crisis  in  the  malady  of  the 


196 

Church,  when  agitation  would  lead  to  a  separation  and  division,  which,  say  the 
bishops,  Northern  gentlemen  are  not  now  prepared  for.  Does  it  show  that  there  was 
no  evil  on  this  subject,  no  danger,  no  aspect  of  separation,  no  difficulties,  no  differ- 
ences, (in  the  language  of  this  Answer;)  so  that  when  these  gentlemen,  in  1844,  after 
an  agitation  unparalleled  in  its  character,  and  acts  of  the  most  wounding  style  com- 
mitted against  the  feelings  of  the  Southern  delegates,  made  a  declaration  that  a 
continuance  in  that  state  was  no  longer  possible,  did  they  declare  some  new  thing, 
a  thing  then  originating,  and  which  required  them  to  be  active  in  bringing  their  pro- 
phecy to  pass  t  or  were  they  speaking  historically  as  to  matters  they  had  observed 
for  a  long  time,  and  which  then  flashed  upon  them  with  a  light  no  one  could  resist. 
I  think  your  Honours  will  read  with  advantage  the  Address  to  the  British  Confer- 
ence, and  the  answer  to  it. 

These  conciliatory  measures  were  adopted  in  1844,  and  yet  it  will  be  said  that  this 
shows  there  was  no  danger.  What  does  it  show  1  It  shows  there  is  no  danger  if 
you  keep  still ;  your  patient  may  recover  if  you  keep  quiet ;  but  if  you  fire  a  cannon 
about  him,  you  may  kill  him  1  What  was  done  1  What  was  the  history  of  things 
from  1840  to  18441  I  speak  quite  within  a  moderate  form  of  expression,  when  I  say 
that  in  1844  the  agitation  was  fiercely  renewed,  and  that  agitation  had  grown  from 
the  state  of  things  between  1840  and  1844.  You  will  see  the  beginning  of  the  Con- 
ference of  1844  flooded  with  petitions  on  the  subject  of  slavery  from  Northern  confer- 
ences. You  will  see  the  "  Breakwater  Conference"  anew  standing  up  to  make  the 
waves  break.  The  Conference  took  up  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding  as  early  as  May  4. 
This  Mr.  Harding,  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  had  been  suspended  from  his  minis- 
terial standing  for  refusing  to  manumit  certain  slaves  who  came  into  his  possession 
by  his  marriage.  On  the  8th  May  this  business  was  taken  up  and  debated,  and 
on  the  10th  also.  On  the  llth  it  was  again  taken  up,  and  decided  ;  and  they  then 
sustained  the  degradation  of  a  man  living  in  a  State  where  it  was  shown  he 
could  not  manumit  the  slave,  except  by  submitting  him  to  be  transported  out  of  the 
State  by  the  sheriff,  and  if  the  slave  had  connexions,  wife,  children,  all  would  have 
to  be  abandoned.  Was  this  the  quiet  of  the  tender  friend  to  a  sick  patient  1  Was 
this  behaving  according  to  the  recommendation  of  the  Conference  of  1840?  Or  was 
it  not  breaking  with  thunder  upon  this  wished-to-be  peaceful  body  1  It  seems  to  me 
that  no  gentleman  of  discretion  in  that  Conference,  could  have  looked  at  that  thing, 
and  at  the  historical  and  prophetic  declaration  of  the  bishops  in  1840,  without  seeing 
proof  of  the  now-existing  state  of  things.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  knell  of  this  peace 
was  then  sounded — the  division  was  then  declared  ;  and  look  at  the  consequences. 
Immediately,  under  the  impulse  which  a  large  majority  gi.ves — for  men  acting  in 
bodies  are  acted  upon  by  their  sympathies,  and,  as  Lord  Chesterfield  expressed  it  of 
the  House  of  Lords,  every  great  assembly  is  a  mob ;  that  is  to  say,  they  go  more  by 
sympathies  than  by  individual  wisdom — it  produces  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew.  I  need  only  refer  to  that :  I  do  conceive  it  is  a  touching  history  ;  no  one, 
I  think,  who  ever  read  the  account  of  the  proceedings  can  ever  let  it  be  obliterated. 
In  the  first  place  a  resolution  is  offered  asking  him  to  resign.  That  would  have 
been,  to  be  sure,  advisory,  but  pretty  strong  advice,  like  inviting  a  man  to  leave  your 
room  ;  you  invite  him  peaceably  first,  and  if  he  does  not  go,  your  servant  takes  him 
by  the  coat,  and  says,  "That  is  the  way,  sir."  But  this  at  first  was  an  invitation. 
Either  it  was  rude,  or  offensive  in  some  way,  or  it  was  insufficient, — I  am  unable  to 
say  which, — and  then  a  resolution  was  presented  by  Mr.  Finley,  that  he  desist  from 
hia  episcopal  functions.  I  wish  to  read  this  now,  in  reference  to  what  is  disputed  be- 
tween the  two  parties  in  1844,  as  to  whether  this  is  advisory  merely,  or  covertly  a 
sentence  of  degradation. 


197 

"Whereas  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated 
to  destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has 
become  connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  which,  in  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference,  will  greatly 
embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if  not  in 
some  places  entirely  prevent  it ;  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from 
the  exercise  of  this  office  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains." 

It  seems  to  me  that  any  one  skilled  in  ecclesiastical  sentences  would  find  here 
every  element  of  a  sentence  of  degradation.  It  refers  first  to  the  Discipline — it  for- 
bids so  and  so.  What  is  the  use  of  the  recital,  if  the  gentleman  has  not  done  some- 
thing forbidden  1  Why  recite  the  law  to  say  that  it  has  been  kept  1  It  is  cited  to 
show  that  it  was  broken,  and  that  these  gentlemen  acted  under  warrant  of  the  law. 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  a  judicial  sentence  is,  if  that  was  not.  It  recites  what 
the  Discipline  forbids,  and  then  that  Bishop  Andrew  had  become  connected  with  sla- 
very, which  drew  after  it  certain  consequences.  Here  is  the  only  thing  which  is 
different  from  a  judicial  sentence  :  it  is  a  sentence  of  a  bill  of  attainder ;  in  other 
words,  instead  of  saying  this  violation  has  drawn  after  it  consequences  which  the  law 
imputes  to  crime,  it  says  it  draws  after  it  consequences  which  are  adjudged  to  be  in- 
consistent with  the  social  state.  You  may  search  the  history  of  bills  of  attainder  in 
England  and  analyze  them,  and  you  will  always  find  some  grave  misdemeanor  which 
has  never  been  precisely  defined  by  the  law,  but  which  has  satisfied  those  who  sat  in 
judgment  and  passed  the  bill,  that  it  was  a  grievous  offence,  not  by  reason  of  violat- 
ing some  known  law,  but  some  great  principle  which  those  who  sat  on  it  thought 
needed  protection,  and  for  that  they  pass  the  attainder,  forfeit  the  estate,  take  the 
life,  bring  the  subject  to  the  block. 

But  what  did  they  do  here  1  Did  they  advise  Bishop  Andrew  to  manumit  his 
slaves  1  That  would  have  been  absurd.  They  knew  he  could  not  do  it.  When 
you  advise  a  man,  you  suppose  it  is  something  which  he  can  do.  Why  did  they  not 
advise  him  to  manumit  his  slaves  ?  It  would  have  struck  every  one  as  an  absurdity. 
Manumit  them  in  Georgia !  Every  one  would  have  said,  it  is  like  asking  him  to  run 
when  manacled.  They  passed  a  judicial  degradation.  They  said,  "It  is  the  sense 
of  this  General  Conference  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise  of  this  office."  "  That 
he  desist !" — that  is  not  a  term  of  advice.  He  is  not  invited  to  do  anything,  but  it  is 
"  the  sense,"  the  judgment,  of  the  Conference  "  that  he  desist."  Is  not  that  a  judi- 
cial degradation  of  this  gentleman  1  What  is  the  office  of  a  bishop  ?  Let  us  see 
whether  this  is  a  degradation  or  not.  "  He  that  desireth  the  office  of  a  bishop,  de- 
sireth  a  good  thing."  What  is  the  good  thing  1  Is  it  to  be  called  a  bishop  1  Is  it 
to  be  printed  in  the  Hymn  book  and  Book  of  Discipline  with  no  functions  1  Is  it  to 
receive  $200  a  year  1  Surely  not ;  and  last  of  all  in  this  Connexion,  among  whom 
we  are  now  walking,  self-denying  men,  living  in  contented  poverty,  and  in  their  con- 
tentment being  richer  than  any  of  the  bishops  who  wear  mitres.  What  is  desirable 
in  the  office  of  a  bishop  1  It  is  the  duty  and  functions  of  the  bishop  ;  the  opportu- 
nity of  glorious  labour  ;  the  noble  duty  of  supervising  the  religious  instruction  and 
conduct  of  the  ministers  among  whom  he  walks.  These  are  the  things  which  make 
the  office  of  a  bishop  desirable.  That  is  the  "  good  thing"  to  be  desired.  It  is  the 
carrying  out  of  the  great  principle,  that  it  is  the  glory  of  the  labour  which  is  the  glory 
of  the  office ;  it  is  not  the  glory  of  the  title,  of  wealth,  of  ease, — it  is  the  glory  of  the 
functions  of  the  episcopacy  which  he  is  exercising,  which  induce  him  to  accept  it,  and 
make  him  honoured.  "  From  all  these  things,  Bishop  Andrew,  you  must  abstain." 
"  Violated  any  law  1"  "  Yes,  you  have  violated  a  law, — not  exactly  that  we  can  try 
you  for  ;  but  you  have  done  that  which  satisfies  us  of  a  violation  of  our  principles  of 


198 

policy,  as  the  high,  supreme,  sovereign,  judicial,  and  legislative  body,  for  which  we 
attaint  you."  There  it  lies.  That  is  the  sentence  ;  and  when  afterwards  in  the 
Conference  somebody,  certainly  with  more  kindness  of  heart  than  judgment,  moved 
a  resolution  that  it  should  be  considered  advisory,  the  good  sense  of  the  members  re- 
jected it,  because  it  would  have  been  absurd  to  call  it  advice.  The  sense  of  this 
Conference  is  that  you  desist ;  the  judgment  of  the  Conference  is,  that  in  conse- 
quence of  a  violation  of  the  principle  of  Discipline,  you  must  desist.  Here  was  an 
action  of  the  most  permanent  character,  bearing  upon  this  question  in  such  a  way 
as  most  effectually  to  bring  into  view  the  prophecy  of  the  bishops  in  1840,  that  a  fur- 
ther agitation  of  this  subject  would  render  a  separation  of  that  Church  unavoidable. 
I  cannot  forbear  calling  your  attention  to  the  deliberation  with  which  this  was  done. 
If  it  had  been  a  transient  ebullition,  which  it  might  be  expected  cooler  moments  would 
have  quieted,  our  learned  friends  might  say  there  was  nothing  to  be  apprehended  ; 
but  this  thing  was  debated  from  May  23d  to  some  day  in  June.  In  the  meantime 
the  bishops  all  came  out  with  some  advice.  They  say,  Postpone  this  subject  until 
1848 — let  time  come  and  heal  the  agitation  and  heat  upon  this  subject — let  it  come 
with  its  healing,  its  cooling  influence  ;  and  so  would  have  been  the  advice  of  every 
man  who  did  not  believe  the  evil  incurable.  After  that  was  presented,  one  of  the 
bishops,  Bishop  Hedding,  thought,  "  well  I  am  sure  this  will  do  no  good,"  and  re- 
voked his  signature.  The  other  bishops,  for  different  reasons,  stood  by  that  recom- 
mendation. Now  see  how  deliberate  this  was.  Would  it  not  be  a  libel  upon  this 
body  to  suppose  that  this  indicated  a  transient  feeling,  or  anything  likely  to  pass  away 
between  1844  and  1848  1  Can  anybody  say  that  the  Conference  was  so  reckless  of 
the  safety  of  the  Church  that  they  preferred  acting  immediately,  although  it  would 
lead  to  such  consequences,  rather  than  to  wait  till  18481 

I  say  that  by  this  act  the  bishop's  itinerancy  and  episcopacy  were  plainly  destroyed, 
and  he  was  disqualified  without  conviction  of  anything.  It  was  a  legislative  declara- 
tion as  to  slavery  disqualifying  every  preacher,  in  Harding's  case,  and  every  bishop, 
in  Andrew's  case ;  so  that  thereafter  in  that  Southern  country  no  man  connected 
with  slavery,  however  involuntarily,  could  ever  be  a  preacher  or  a  bishop,  and  for  the 
same  reason  he  could  hold  no  official  station  in  that  Church.  I  ask  whether  that  did 
not  indicate  a  foregone  state  of  opinion,  which  had  been  previously  produced1!  because 
it  is  in  vain  to  say  that  it  was  all  got  up  by  the  Northern  men  at  the  meeting  of  that 
Conference.  It  was  the  result  of  previous  deliberation,  then  only  ripened  and  dis- 
covered. It  is  in  vain  to  say,  with  such  a  disqualifying  sentence  upon  all  the 
preachers  of  this  body  belonging  to  the  Southern  conferences  connected  with  slavery, 
that  it  was  possible  for  them  to  go  on  as  co-operating  members  of  a  ministry. 

Was  there  any  change  to  be  hoped  for  on  this  subject  1  In  1832,  as  the  Reply  to 
the  Protest  tells  us,  the  anti-slavery  feeling  had  got  a  great  headway  and  was  con- 
stantly increasing.  We  have  seen  what  it  was  in  1840.  We  now  see  what  it  was 
in  1844,  after  an  experience  of  twelve  years,  resulting  in  acts  of  a  very  extreme 
character.  Certainly  I  speak  in  moderation  when  I  say  these  two  acts  were  of  an 
extreme  character.  Was  there  any  hope  that  gentlemen  who  were  adverse  to  slavery 
would  give  up  their  opinions  1  It  would  be  contrary  to  experience  to  expect  that 
that  which  had  gone  on  increasing  would  not  continue  to  increase,  but  would,  be- 
cause it  had  increased,  diminish.  How  was  it  with  the  South]  Was  this  the  way 
to  conciliate  them1?  The  bishops,  in  1840,  had  told  the  Conference  "  Keep  quiet," 
and  in  the  very  face  of  that  they  go  on  with  the  most  serious  acts,  wounding  to  every- 
thing the  Southern  people  considered  distinctive  of  themselves.  Is  that  a  thing 
which  would  conduce  to  peace  on  their  part1?  Is  that  a  measure  likely  to  result  in  a 
better  state  of  the  Church  1 


199 

This  Declaration  was  handed  in  on  the  5th  of  June.     It  says,  (p.  97,) — 

"  The  delegates  of  the  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  take  leave  to  declare 
to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  continued 
agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church  ;  the  fre- 
quent action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference ;  and  especially  the  extra- 
judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  which  resulted,  on  Saturday  last,  in  the 
virtual  suspension  of  him  from  his  office  as  superintendent,  must  produce  a  state  of 
things  in  the  South  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General 
Conference  over  these  conferences  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in 
the  slaveholding  States." 

I  beg  your  attention  to  the  last  four  lines  of  this.  They  speak  of  causes  which  are 
past,  and  the  effect  that  they  must  produce.  They  speak  of  effects  which  are  cer- 
tain. They  do  not  say  "we  suppose  they  will ;"  they  speak  with  certainty  of  the  fact, 
and  of  consequences  within  their  own  knowledge ;  and  then  they  declare  what  those 
consequences  are  "which  render,"  not  "which  will  render,"  or  "  are  likely  to  ren- 
der," but  which  render  the  separation  necessary.  This  was  a  declaration  of  sensible 
men, — a  declaration,  I  think,  in  the  very  spirit  of  peace  to  that  Church, — because  at 
every  Conference  there  would  have  been  trials,  degradations,  and  elections  of  bishops 
more  and  more  free  from  any  connexion  with  slavery,  and  therefore  more  and 
more  foreign  from  the  people  among  whom  they  were  to  minister.  That  Declaration 
was  signed  by  all  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  conferences.  It  was  referred  to 
a  committee.  Then, 

"  J.  B.  McFerrin  offered  the  following  resolution : — 

" '  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  commu- 
nication of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  conferences  be  instructed,  provided  they 
cannot  in  their  judgment  devise  a  plan  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficulties 
now  existing  in  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  consti- 
tutional plan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the  Church.' 

"  T.  Crowder's  motion  to  strike  out  the  word  'constitutional,'  did  not  prevail,  and 
the  resolution  was  adopted." 

This  shows  how  distinctly  the  question  of  constitutionality  was  brought  in.  The 
committee  of  nine  was  composed  of  five  of  those  who  voted  for  the  sentence,  and  four 
who  voted  against  the  sentence  of  Bishop  Andrew.  Then  came  the  Protest  and  the 
Reply  to  it,  both  of  which  I  ask  your  Honours  to  read,  not  as  detailing  facts,  because 
these  gentlemen,  no  doubt,  took  different  views  of  facts  and  especially  of  inferences, 
but  with  a  view  of  looking  at  the  character  of  the  principles  detailed  in  both  these 
papers,  and  to  ask  yourselves  whether,  supposing  them  both  to  be  sincere,  they  did 
not  declare  principles  on  each  side,  under  the  same  Discipline,  which  prevented  this 
Church  from  ever  being  anything  but  nominally  in  unity.  The  moment  those  papers 
came  in, — one  the  manifesto  on  the  one  side,  and  the  other  on  the  other, — there 
was  as  entire  a  separation  in  fact  as  afterwards  was  accomplished  in  form.  I  do  not 
intend  to  read  either  of  these  papers,  but  I  beg  very  briefly  to  say  what  princi- 
ples they  avowed. 

On  the  part  of  the  Southern  gentlemen,  the  Protest  avowed  that  the  Conference 
adopted  this  sentence  as  degrading  Bishop  Andrew  without  a  trial.  On  the  other 
side  they  declared  such  things  might  be  done,  and  it  was  not  degrading  the  bishop ; 
that  they  had  a  right  to  do  it  without  trying  him.  There  was  a  principle  of  Church 
government  involved,  vital  to  the  episcopacy  of  that  Church.  One  side  say,  "  You 
do,  in  effect,  punish  this  bishop  by  bill  of  attainder."  The  other  side  say,  "  We  have 
a  right  to  do  that  with  the  bishop,  for  this  cause  or  a  similar  one."  Here  was  a  di- 
vision on  the  subject  of  episcopacy  in  the  Church  government,  which  would  seem  to 
make  it  perfectly  idle  for  them  to  expect  to  go  on  together  as  a  Church,  each  majn- 


200 

taining  their  sentiments.  Was  there  any  hope  of  these  gentlemen  changing1?  I  am 
at  a  loss  to  see  in  anything  that  afterwards  took  place  the  slightest  indication  that 
anything  would  have  produced  an  amelioration. 

The  Protest  avers  that  this  sentence  rested  on  a  mere  aversion  to  slavery,  and 
that  it  thus  announced  a  purpose  destructive  to  the  unity  of  the  Church,  and  adopted 
the  anti-slavery  principle,  and  that  so  a  division  was  already  made.  Now,  my  learned 
friends  set  up  in  their  Answer,  that  the  division  was  not  made  until  after  this  Protest ; 
and  the  gentlemen  who  made  it,  endeavoured  to  make  good  their  prediction. 

What  do  they  say  in  the  Reply  7  They  set  up  that  no  slaveholder  ever  had  been 
a  bishop.  The  allegation  of  the  Protest  is,  You  adopt  the  anti-slavery  principle,  and 
the  degradation  of  the  bishop,  on  the  mere  ground  of  aversion  to  slavery.  They  set 
up  that  no  slaveholder  ever  was  a  bishop  intentionally  in  this  Church.  Here  is  a 
principle  broadly  declared  and  united  in  on  both  sides, — both  uniting  in  the  fact,  the 
only  difference  being  one  saying  that  it  was,  and  the  other,  that  it  was  not  right. 

The  Reply  declares  that  his  acting  as  bishop  would  be  injurious  to  the  North,  and 
they  say  he  could  have  no  itinerancy  at  the  North ;  in  that  way  averring  that  the 
Northern  sentiment  should  control  in  this  Church.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  was 
a  thing  to  enable  this  Church  to  stand  as  an  undivided  Church  1  They  then  aver 
another  thing,  in  which  it  seems  to  me  they  had  the  letter  though  not  the  spirit  of 
their  Discipline  with  them,  that  the  General  Conference  was  not  limited  in  its  powers 
as  to  slavery.  The  Protest  had  averred  that  there  had  been  a  compromise  on  the 
subject  of  slavery,  and  their  Discipline  showed  it.  On  the  other  side,  they  averred 
there  was  no  compromise  upon  the  subject  which  bound  the  General  Conference. 
It  seems  to  me  that  though  it  did  not  bind  them  in  letter,  yet  it  was  one  of  those 
things  upon  which  both  parties  had  so  acted  that  it  was  in  honour  as  valid  and  com- 
plete a  compromise  as  anything  ever  done.  It  was  very  much  like  those  things 
which  have  taken  place  in  this  country  called  "  compromises."  You  cannot  limit 
Congress  ;  but  when  large  sections  of  country  are  agitated,  and  measures  adopted 
which  are  on  both  sides  considered  as  concessions  for  peace'  sake  and  compromises, 
they  are  binding  in  honour  and  conscience,  although  not  binding  in  law  and  by  legal 
technicality.  That  was  exactly  the  state  of  things  here  ;  but  the  gentlemen  who  had 
the  majority  in  the  Conference  of  1844,  very  clearly  declared  "  We  will  listen  to  no 
considerations  in  that  spirit ;  we  will  consider  ourselves  entirely  free  on  that  subject, 
to  go  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  sovereign  power  of  the  General  Conference." 

Again :  this  reply  clearly  alleges  that  the  Southern  Churches  and  conferences 
were  bound  to  receive  bishops  who  held  anti-slavery  sentiments.  So  they  were  ; 
but  how  was  it  to  conduce  to  the  peace  of  the  Church  that  all  the  bishops  who  were 
sent  to  the  South  should  go  without  the  slighest  sympathy  which  the  relation  of 
master  and  slaves  in  any  of  its  forms  could  ever  give  rise  to  7  Was  that  an  epis- 
copacy 7  Was  that  a  ministry  which  in  a  Protestant  country  ever  would  be  received 
and  listened  to,  or  permitted  to  exercise  its  functions  1  After  this  Protest  and  Reply, 
could  this  body  continue  together  1  and  is  it  not  evident  that  unless  the  Methodist 
Church  could  extinguish  slavery,  it  must  leave  the  South  1  On  that  subject,  it  seems 
to  me,  it  is  too  much  to  say,  that  after  what  had  taken  place  during  this  series  of 
years,  and  had  thus  ripened  and  discovered  itself  in  1840,  and  more  especially  in  1844, 
the  Declaration  was  the  cause  of  the  disruption.  You  might  as  well  say  that  the 
doctor  who  tells  you  that  you  have  a  fever,  gave  you  the  fever.  I  will  simply  refer 
your  Honours  to  the  result  on  the  queries  of  the  bishops  as  to  how  they  were  to 
treat  Bishop  Andrew.  Their  inquiry  was  made  on  the  sixth  of  June ;  it  will  be 
found  on  p.  124  of  book  No.  1.  As  I  have  abbreviated  it,  it  comes  to  this.  He  is 
to  do  nothing  ;  but  his  name  is  to  be  published  in  the  Hymn  Books  and  all  the  pub- 


201 

lications  of  the  Society.  If  I  wanted  to  make  degradation  most  complete,  that  is 
the  course  I  should  have  taken,  only  adding  to  it,  if  I  could,  the  publication  of  a 
Methodist  Spelling  Book,  and  having  his  name  printed  in  connexion  with  the  names 
of  the  other  bishops,  whom  they  were  in  the  habit  of  seeing. 

I  have  by  anticipation  spoken  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  nine,  on  the  8th 
of  June,  1844.  This  committee  of  nine  were  originally  to  consider  whether  they 
could  devise  a  plan  for  amicable  adjustment,  and  if  they  could  not,  then  they  were 
to  devise  a  plan  for  separation.  The  committee  reported  a  plan  for  separation,  turn- 
ing it  upon  this  Declaration,  which  had  been  made,  being  verified  by  the  delegates 
from  the  Southern  conferences.  The  delegates  from  the  Southern  conferences, 
under  the  lead  of  Mr.  Paine,  who  was  afterwards  a  bishop  in  the  Southern  Church, 
moved  to  transfer  that  burden  from  themselves  to  the  Southern  conferences.  That 
was  agreed  to.  What  was  meant  by  leaving  it  to  the  Southern  conferences  if 
they  should  find  a  separation  necessary  1  When  were  they  to  make  the  search  1 
What  experiment  were  they  to  try  in  the  South  1  The  gentlemen  who  made  the 
Declaration  knew  the  sentiments  of  their  constituents.  What  was  meant  by  this 
finding  1  It  meant  what  a  jury  does  when  it  finds.  They  were  to  sit  down  and 
consider  the  subject,  and  if  in  their  conclusions  they  found  that  this  was  so,  then  they 
were  authorized  to  make  a  separate  organization.  That  is  all  I  have  to  say  upon 
that  part  of  the  subject. 

This  was  a  plain  and  distinct  authority  to  these  Southern  conferences  to  organize 
themselves  into  a  new  Church.  This  was  in  no  sense  conditional.  In  the  first  place, 
it  was  not  conditional  upon  any  future  event  which  was  to  determine  the  conferences. 
It  was  to  be  left  to  their  sober  judgment  to  pass  upon  this  question,  of  whether  a 
division  was  necessary  to  the  peace  of  the  Church  ;  and  there  is  not  a  word  of  con- 
dition in  regard  to  the  separation,  except  "  if  they  should  find  it  necessary."  In  the 
next  place,  no  new  event  was  expected  to  occur.  Who  was  to  tell  what  was  to 
satisfy  these  gentlemen  1  Suppose  we  adopt  the  conclusion  that  they  were  to  look 
for  something  else  to  happen.  The  Southern  conferences  met  in  September,  1844. 
What  were  they  to  do  1  Why,  it  was  to  be  talked  about  among  the  people,  and  the 
general  sense  of  the  people  was  to  be  ascertained  on  that  subject.  But  did  the 
General  Conference  of  1844  appoint  any  judge  to  determine  whether  these  gentle- 
men had  exercised  the  power  1  That  was  left  to  these  conferences  themselves. 
If  their  judgments  were  satisfied,  either  by  what  they  knew  had  happened  or  would 
happen,  that  it  was  necessary,  they  were  to  organize  a  separate  Church.  What  was 
done  1  This  thing  was  committed  to  the  conferences  by  the  delegates  ;  they  were 
invited  to  judge  of  it.  It  is  complained  of,  that  they  advised  a  separation.  Why, 
they  had  a  perfect  right  to  do  so.  If  in  conscience  they  believed  it  necessary  to  the 
peace  of  the  Church,  it  was  their  duty  to  have  done  so.  The  resolutions  adopted 
by  the  conferences  show  that  it  was  a  matter  of  discussion  ;  they  passed  upon 
this  subject,  and  their  judgment  was  the  judgment  intended  to  be  conclusive  on 
the  Church.  Their  judgment  was  to  be  the  concluding  judgment  on  the  subject, 
because  there  is  no  pretence  that  this  was  to  be  left  to  another  General  Confer- 
ence, and  because  they  had  appointed  commissioners  to  carry  this  division  into 
effect;  showing- that  they  had  not  anticipated  an  act  of  another  Conference.  If 
they  did  not  suppose  that  this  was  to  have  been  done  under  that  act  of  the  Confer- 
ence, then  they  authorized  these  gentlemen  to  pass  judgment  and  organize  a 
Church,  and  when  it  was  done,  unless  it  should  suit  the  General  Conference,  which 
was  to  meet  in  1848,  that  organization  made  them  seceders.  Why,  by  the  very  na- 
ture of  the  power,  by  the  very  invitation  to  judge  on  this  subject,  their  judgment  was 
made  the  concluding  and  final  judgment  which  was  to  protect  those  who  acted  under  it 


202 

Again  :  it  is  alleged,  and  perhaps  it  will  be  argued — it  is  set  up  in  the  Answer — 
that  it  was  all  conditional  upon  the  vote  on  the  change  of  the  restrictive  rule.  Now, 
that  cannot  be  so,  for  one  very  plain  reason.  The  change  of  the  restrictive  rule  was 
to  authorize  the  turning  over  of  the  property  to  commissioners  from  the  "  Church, 
South."  It  imported  that  there  should  be  a  "  Church,  South,"  before  any  necessity 
could  arise  of  voting  upon  a  restrictive  rule.  Unless  the  Church,  South,  was  organ- 
ized, or  unless  it  was  certain  that  it  would  be  organized,  the  proposition  to  change 
the  restrictive  rule  was  a  mere  hypothetical  sort  of  thing.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
changing  of  the  restrictive  rule  was  made  a  condition  to  only  one  thing,  and  that 
thing  was  the  agents  turning  over  a  part  of  the  funds  without  the  decree  of  a  court 
of  justice,  or  an  act  of  the  General  Conference,  to  the  commissioners  of  the  Church, 
South. 

Moreover,  it  has  been  suggested,  in  some  papers  which  have  gone  forth  on  this 
subject  from  our  friends  on  the  other  side,  that  all  this  was  a  plan  tc  stand  and  be 
adopted  together.  There  is  nothing  of  that  kind  in  the  Plan.  What  had  taken  place 
with  regard  to  Canada  shows  that  it  was  perfectly  competent,  and  according  to  the 
usage  of  this  Church,  to  allow  of  a  separation,  and  to  leave  the  question  of  property 
to  be  afterwards  adjusted  according  to  equity.  There  is  nothing  in  that  Plan  which 
makes  any  part  of  it  conditional,  one  upon  the  other,  except  only  that  which  relates 
to  a  change  of  the  restrictive  article  ;  and  that  is  a  condition  only  to  the  action  of  the 
agents,  and  the  action  of  the  agents  as  to  turning  over  the  capital. 

It  is  also  said  that  it  was  conditional  upon  our  conforming  to  the  limits  ;  and  they 
assert,  in  some  of  their  papers,  two  violations,  as  they  say,  where  Southern  preachers 
went  into  bordering  Northern  conferences  and  established  preaching  houses.  That 
cannot  be  a  condition,  because  the  effect  of  it  would  be  to  make  the  rights  of  every 
one  of  the  Southern  conferences  depend  upon  the  acts  of  that  conference  which  hap 
pened  to  be  delinquent.  That  was  the  provision  of  a  treaty,  and  not  a  condition. 
This  was  a  covenant,  and  the  violators  of  it  stood  as  the  violators  of  a  covenant  be- 
tween two  contracting  parties.  It  might  be  said  it  was  a  shame,  if  the  fact  were 
such  ;  and  I  do  not  intend  to  discuss  that,  because  I  consider  it  utterly  immaterial. 
Who  gave  that  border  conference  that  did  this,  the  right  to  jeopardize  the  interests 
of  thirteen  or  fourteen  other  conferences  growing  out  of  this  Plan  of  Separation  1 
Never  can  this  be  considered  a  condition.  How  long  was  such  a  condition  to  con- 
tinue 1  If  it  was  a  condition  at  all,  -it  must  be  of  perpetual  obligation.  Is  it  a  per- 
petual condition,  so  that  at  any  distance  of  time,  after  the  organization  and  establish- 
ment of  the  Southern  Church,  if  a  conference  of  that  Church  should  violate  it,  every- 
thing would  be  annulled  which  preceded  that,  and  things  would  be  precisely  in  the 
same  condition  as  they  were  before  the  adoption  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  1  That  is 
the  effect  of  holding  it  to  be  a  condition.  It  cannot  be  so.  I  speak  this,  I  am  sure, 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  enlightened  judgment  of  the  Court. 

Then,  on  the  subject  of  the  votes  on  the  change  of  the  restrictive  article,  it  seems 
that  the  necessary  number  of  votes  were  not  given  to  authorize  the  change.  I  chiefly 
notice  this,  because  your  Honours  will  see  that  it  shows  no  lack  of  strength  in  our 
cause.  On  the  journals  of  the  Conference  of  the  Northern  Church  of  1848,  page  177, 
I  find  this  report : — The  votes  were,  for  altering  the  sixth  rule,  from  the  South  971, 
and  from  the  North  1,164,  in  all  2,135  ;  and  against  it,  from  the  South  3,  from  the 
North  1,067,  in  all  1,070.  The  three-fourths  required  was  2,404;  so  that  even  at 
the  North  there  was  a  majority  of  about  100  for  it.  But  inasmuch  as  it  required 
three-fourths,  the  whole  number  should  have  been  2,404 ;  there  were  269  votes  lack- 
ing, out  of  over  3,000  cast.  We  have,  however,  this  fact  evinced  by  this,  as  to  the 
equity  of  the  claim,  that  the  Northern  gentlemen  themselves,  by  a  very  decisive  majority, 


203 

certainly  a  working  majority  under  any  other  circumstances,  were  in  favour  of  ac- 
knowledging this  right  in  the  South  to  part  of  the  funds. 

Now,  I  submit  that  after  what  took  place,  there  was  no  secession  ;  that  those  who 
organized  and  belonged  to  the  Southern  Church  did  it  without  blame  ;  that  they  are  in 
every  sense  preachers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  good  standing,  belong- 
ing to  yearly  conferences,  adopting  Methodist  doctrines  and  Methodist  discipline. 
Then,  I  ask,  suppose  there  be  no  alteration  in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  what  is  the 
effect  of  it  upon  the  rights  of  the  superannuated  and  worn-out  preachers  of  the  South- 
ern conferences  !  To  determine  this,  we  must  look  to  the  article.  And  here  I  wish 
to  say,  that  if  we  are  not  seceders.  if  we  are  as  truly  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  our  part,  as  they  are  in  their  part  of  the  country,  then  I  wish  to  know  upon  what 
principle  it  can  be  held  that  it  would  be  a  violation  of  trust  in  the  Book  Concern,  or 
its  agents,  to  pay  over  to  our  preachers  their  share  of  the  produce  1  The  article  reads 
(page  28):— 

"  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of  the  Char- 
tered Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  supernume- 
rary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

I  submit  that  even  if  we  were  a  secession,  even  if  we  have  ceased  to  be  in  the 
Methodist  Connexion  in  the  sense  of  the  Methodist  Discipline,  whether,  after 
all  that  has  taken  place,  a  change  of  the  restrictive  article  was  required  to  entitle  our 
beneficiaries  to  this  fund.  I  ask  now  whether,  supposing  the  book  agents  had  paid 
out  this  fund  to  the  Southern  beneficiaries,  to  the  widows  and  children  (taking  them, 
first  as  the  non-combatants  in  this  matter)  their  share,  would  any  court  in  the  world 
say  that  was  a  breach  of  trust  in  these  book  agents  1  Upon  what  principle  could 
they  say  so  1  Are  these  widows  and  children  not  in  good  standing  in  that  Church  1 
The  Northern  delegates  had  said  to  our  people,  "  You  may  join  this  Southern  organi- 
zation without  blame."  Then  are  we  not  in  good  standing  1  We  have  done  an  act 
which  you  say  we  might  do,  and  do  without  blame.  If  we  have  done  it  without 
blame  in  the  sense  of  the  Discipline,  without  blame  in  the  very  view  of  an  alteration, 
of  the  restrictive  article,  how  are  we  to  be  excluded  from  our  share  T  Although  there 
may  be  a  difficulty,  rendering  it  necessary  for  these  agents,  when  they  are  asked  to 
part  with  the  capital  of  the  fund  itself,  to  require  the  sanction  of  a  court,  I  can  see,  I 
confess,  no  difficulty  as  to  their  being  bound  to  make  a  distribution  among  the  benefi- 
ciaries belonging  to  the  Southern  conferences  under  this  article,  just  as  well  without 
as  with  an  alteration  of  it. 

Moreover,  if  it  was  intended  that  the  whole  of  our  rights  should  depend  upon  the 
alteration  of  the  restrictive  article  in  this  respect,  then,  beyond  all  doubt,  it  would 
have  been  arranged,  so  that  the  alteration  should  have  covered  this  case  and  no  other. 
Then,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  change  in  the  restrictive  article  would  have  proposed  so 
as  to  have  made  the  article  read,  "  They  shall  not  apply  the  produce  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern to  any  other  purpose,  than  the  benefit  of  travelling,  &c.,  preachers  in  our  Connex- 
ion or  in  any  Connexion  authorized  by  us  ;"  but  the  alteration  recommended  is  to 
add,  "  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  upon  by  the  votes  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference."  I  submit,  and  on  this  subject  I 
need  not  enlarge,  for  the  considerations  are  very  plain,  that  if  we  are  not  seceders, 
then  all  these  beneficiaries  are  entitled,  even  though  these  book  agents  should  retain 
possession  of  the  fund,  and  they  must  distribute  it  through  these  annual  conferences. 

This  being  a  subject  of  equitable  administration,  I  have  one  other  considera- 
tion to  submit  on  thft  part  of  it.  Here  is  in  equity  an  estoppel  to  the  claim, 
that  we  are  seceders.  There  is  in  equity  an  estoppel  to  the  claim,  that  we, 


204 

who  formed  this  organization  under  the  invitation  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  by  the 
co-operation  of  the  bishops,  and  without  an  intimation  from  any  authorized  body  of 
this  Church  that  we  were  doing  wrong,  are  seceders.  We  organized  ourselves  into 
a  separate  Church,  on  the  invitation  of  the  General  Conference  ;  and  it  seems  to  me 
against  all  equity,  that  they  should  be  permitted  to  set  up  that  act  as  the  forfeiting 
act.  But  forfeiture  may  be  waved  ;  and  it  may  be  waved  by  acts  before  as  well 
as  after.  If  I  grant  permission  to  a  man  to  do  that  which  would  otherwise  be  a  for- 
feiture, it  ceases  to  be  a  forfeiture.  And  after  a  forfeiture  I  might  do  that  which 
sanctions  it,  and  it  waves  the  forfeiture.  The  law  lays  hold  of  everything  to  defeat 
a  forfeiture.  What  our  learned  friends  claim  in  this,  is  simply  a  forfeiture,  acknow- 
ledging our  prior  right,  and  acknowledging  that  it  is  a  penalty  beyond  the  damage, 
claiming  much  punishment  for  little  transgression.  Now  I  submit,  that  the  Confer- 
ence of  1844,  has  given  such  a  consent  as  prevents  this  being  a  forfeiture,  unless 
your  Honours  shall  say  it  was  one  of  those  plain  and  direct  breaches  of  trust  which 
come  under  a  very  different  category.  I  therefore  say,  according  to  my  seventh 
point,  that  the  beneficiaries  of  the  fund  in  question,  who  belonged  to  the  Southern 
conferences,  did  not  by  the  new  organization  lose  any  rights,  nor  were  they  disquali- 
fied in  any  manner  from  claiming  their  share  of  the  fund  ;  and  such  claim  is  appro- 
priately made  through  the  General  Conference,  South,  which  succeeds  to  the  place 
of  the  prior  General  Conference  of  the  whole  Church.  Our  claim  to  a  share  of  the 
profits  stands  on  the  fact  of  our  not  being  seceders.  Even  if  the  organization  of  the 
South  should  be  considered  defective,  it  would  not  make  us  seceders  in  the  sense 
of  forfeiting.  Upon  an  idea  which  I  have  presented  to  your  Honours,  that  this 
General  Conference  had  the  power  to  consent,  and  did  consent,  to  the  organization 
of  a  new  body,  a  new  General  Conference,  then,  without  going  to  the  powers  of 
another  General  Conference,  we  have  a  right  to  administer  that  part  of  the  fund 
which  properly  belongs  to  our  beneficiaries,  in  the  same  sense,  and  with  the  same 
right,  that  the  General  Conference  of  the  whole  Church  had  over  the  general  fund 
when  the  Church  remained  undivided.  We  succeed  to  our  share  of  the  sovereignty 
— to  the  sovereignty  in  our  district.  This  fund  is  to  be  administered  through  the 
annual  conferences,  and  they  are  subordinate  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Church,  South  ;  and  the  General  Conference  of  that  Church  has  the  same  right  to 
appoint  a  book  agent  to  carry  out  their  administration,  that  the  General  Conference 
of  the  whole  Church  had  when  the  Church  was  undivided ;  or,  as  the  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Northern  Church  has  to  the  fund  in  their  hands.  I  submit,  that  if  my 
reasoning  has  been  correct  on  the  subject  of  a  division  of  the  Church,  that  neces- 
sarily follows. 

There  is  no  difficulty  of  form  in  any  part  of  this  case.  If  there  is  any  difficulty  it 
is  upon  the  substance  ;  and  the  substance  is,  Have  our  beneficiaries  forfeited  1  If 
not,  they  are  entitled,  either  through  their  conferences  or  an  individual,  to  be  paid 
their  share  of  the  profits  ;  and  if  the  Southern  Church  has  been  organized  according 
to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Church,  then  we  have  a  right  to  have 
that  fund  appropriated  by  new  trustees.  Therefore,  in  conclusion,  I  say,  that  an  ac- 
count should  be  ordered  of  the  proportions  of  the  profits  of  the  Book  Concern, 
according  to  the  numbers  on  the  minutes  of  1844,  and  at  the  same  ratio  of  the 
profits  since.  That  is,  according  to  the  "  Plan  of  Separation."  Also,  the  capital 
of  the  fund  should  be  decreed  to  be  divided  in  the  same  way,  and  paid  over  to  the 
commissioners,  South,  as  new  trustees,  or  to  proper  trustees  to  be  appointed  by  the 
Court.  The  profits  of  the  past  are  to  be  subject  to  distribution,  according  to  the 
directions  of  the  General  Conference,  South,  whether  the  fund  remain  with  the  pre- 
sent trustees  or  be  paid  over  to  the  new  trustees. 


205 

I  have  not  thought  it  necessary,  and  it  certainly  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  go 
over  the  steps  that  led  to  the  organization  of  the  new  Church.  I  believe  there  can 
be  no  objection  to  them  as  a  matter  of  form.  I  therefore  leave  this  matter  in  the 
judgment  of  the  Court. 

If  your  Honours  please,  the  attention  with  which  we  have  been  favoured  by  the  Court 
in  this  cause,  leaves  us  nothing  to  fear  as  to  the  calmness  and  care  with  which  its 
judgment  will  be  formed.  We  have  argued  it  at  great  length,  and  we  thank  your 
Honours  for  the  indulgence  extended  to  us.  But  we  have  felt,  and  no  doubt  it  has 
been  a  common  feeling  among  us,  that  no  cause,  probably,  with  which  any  of  us 
have  ever  been  concerned  is  fraught  with  greater  consequences,  or  the  subject 
of  more  intense  solicitude  than  the  present.  It  involves  the  feelings  and  the  in- 
terests of  millions.  It  touches  a  question  of  the  gravest  consequence  to  the  well- 
being  of  this  religious  community.  No  political  question,  nothing  that  has  ever 
presented  itself  on  this  subject,  touches  in  any  degree  interests  so  great,  or  men  so 
influential.  We  know  that  it  will  be  disposed  of  according  to  its  merits.  We, 
on  our  part,  have  studiously  intended  to  avoid,  however  earnest  we  may  have  been  in 
advocating  our  views  on  this  subject,  anything  that  should  be  offensive  to  our  friends 
on  the  other  side,  or  which  should  tend,  in  any  degree,  to  irritate  the  wound  in  this 
body.  On  the  part  of  the  gentlemen  here,  I  believe,  they  are  our  friends,  for  the 
Northern  majority,  although  not  amounting  to  sufficient  to  warrant  this  distribution 
of  the  funds  by  the  agents  themselves,  is  a  majority  of  our  friends.  What  we  have 
spoken  in  earnestness,  we  trust  we  have  guarded  so  as  to  give  no  personal  offence, 
and  not  tend  to  aggravate  any  breach.  We  trust  that  the  full  discussion  which  this 
matter  will  receive  on  the  part  of  our  friends  on  the  other  side,  as  well  as  ourselves, 
may  so  enlighten  this  Methodist  community,  that  it  is  to  be  hoped,  whatever  judg- 
ment your  Honours  may  form  on  the  subject,  the  principles  of  equity  and  of  right 
which  seem  to  us,  and,  I  think,  seem  to  every  one,  to  be  those  principles  of  equity 
and  right  which  lie  on  the  surface,  will  be  most  willingly  adopted ;  and  that  this 
great  controversy,  under  the  enlightened  judgment  of  the  Court,  may  have  its  final 
end. 

JUDGE  NLESON, — Mr.  Ewing,  you  had,  perhaps,  better  put  in  your  proofs  now. 
MR.  EWING, — Mr.  Fancher  will  read  our  evidence  in  a  few  minutes. 

MR.  LORD, — If  your  Honours  please,  there  is  one  authority  which,  in  the  absence 
of  Mr.  Johnson,  I  had  forgot  to  quote.  I  intended  to  refer  the  Court  to  the  reasoning  of 
the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Kentucky,  which  passed  upon  this  very  subject,  when  a  con- 
troversy arose  in  relation  to  some  of  the  preaching-houses.  It  was  the  case  of  Arm- 
strong TS.  Gibson.  It  has  been  published  in  pamphlet  form. 

MR.  EWING, — I  think  it  has  also  been  published  in  9th  Ben.  Monroe. 

MR.  LORD, — The  Court  in  that  case  decided. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — When  was  that  1 

MR.  JOHNSON, — Since  the  separation. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — Since  1845] 

MR.  JOHNSON, — Yes,  sir. 


206 

MR.  LORD  then  read  the  following  note  of  the  case  referred  to,  from  a  pamphlet 
published  by  Mr.  Bascom  and  others,  on  the  subject  of  this  controversy  : — 

"  Extracts  from  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals  of  Kentucky,  in  the  celebrated 
Mavsville  case,  in  which  opinion  the  whole  ground  of  controversy  between  the 
North  and  the  South  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  affecting  the  most  im- 
portant rights  of  the  parties,  is  subjected  to  elaborate  and  careful  examination  by 
the  distinguished  jurists  composing  the  Court : — 

"  The  General  Conference  of  1844  having  adopted  measures  which,  by  many 
Southern  delegates,  were  deemed  injurious  to  the  rights,  and  character,  and  useful- 
ness of  the  Southern  ministry  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  a  Declaration, 
signed  by  the  Southern  delegates,  and  stating  their  apprehension  of  the  necessity  of 
a  separation,  was  presented  to  the  General  Conference,  which  thereupon  passed  a 
set  of  resolutions  providing  for  the  manner  and  consequences  of  the  anticipated  sepa- 
ration, should  it  be  found  necessary,  and  authorizing,  in  that  event,  a  distinct 
Southern  organization. 

"  Under  the  sanction  of  these  resolutions,  a  convention  of  delegates  from  fifteen 
Southern  conferences  assembled  in  1845,  renounced  by  solemn  act  their  connexion 
with  the  pre-existing  organization  and  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  as 
then  constituted,  and,  retaining  the  same  faith  and  doctrine,  the  same  rules  and  disci- 
pline, and  the  same  form  of  constitution  and  government,  established  for  themselves 
a  new  and  independent  organization,  under  the  name  of  '  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South.' 

"  We  are  called  on  to  apply  to  the  consequences  of  a  catastrophe  which,  if  it  had 
not  occurred  when  and  as  it  did,  must  at  some  time  have  happened,  the  provisions 
of  a  deed  which,  having  been  made  when  the  Church  was  united  and  division  not 
contemplated,  refers,  as  might  be  expected,  to  the  existing  name,  and  organs,  and 
action  of  a  united  Church.  The  one  united  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  referred  to 
in  the  deed,  and  extending  its  name  and  authority  to  the  utmost  limits  of  the  United 
States,  having  ceased  to  exist,  by  division  into  two  Churches  of  distinct  territorial 
jurisdiction,  there  is,  in  fact,  no  such  Church  as  is  contemplated  in  the  deed  ;  arid, 
therefore,  no  General  Conference  of  such  a  Church,  no  ministers  and  preachers  of 
such  a  Church,  no  members  of  such  a  Church. 

"  Does  the  fact  that  there  still  remains  a  portion,  whether  small  or  large,  of  the 
original  body,  under  the  original  name  of  the  whole,  invalidate  the  separation,  or  the 
rights  of  the  separating  portion  1  Could  the  remaining  portion  of  the  original  body 
re-assert,  in  the  name  of  the  whole,  the  jurisdiction  which  had  been  renounced  by  the 
whole,  or  revoke  the  assent  which  the  whole  body  had  once  given  to  the  indepen- 
dence of  the  separating  portion  1  Certainly,  if  the  whole  body  had  power,  by  assent 
and  co-operation,  to  legalize  the  separation  and  its  independence  of  a  part  of  itself, 
the  remaining  portion  of  the  original  body,  though  retaining  the  original  name  of  the 
whole,  would  have  no  power,  after  such  assent  had  been  given  and  acted  on,  to  undo, 
by  its  own  mere  will,  what  the  entire  body  had  authorized.  Whatever  else  may  be 
implied  from  the  identity  of  name,  it  cannot  give  to  the  present  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  a  jurisdiction  which  the  original  Church  had  alienated. 

"  But  it  seems  to  us  too  evident  to  require  illustration,  that  the  rights  and  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Southern  Church,  and  the  rights  of  its  members,  are  precisely  the  same 
within  its  own  organization,  as  if  the  present  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  were 
called  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North  ;  that  if  the  Southern  organization 
has  the  sanction  of  the  original  Church,  it  can  suffer  no  disparagement  from  having 
been  the  separating  portion,  but  its  independence  and  jurisdiction  are  complete  ;  and 
that,  to  the  extent  of  its  jurisdiction,  it  stands  in  the  place  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  is  to  be  so  regarded,  as  well  in  giving  construction  and  application 
to  these  deeds,  as  in  determining  the  rights  and  duties  of  its  members. 

"  That  a  Church  organization,  a  self-created  body,  subject,  so  far  as  its  own  con- 
stitution and  organization  are  concerned,  to  no  superior  will,  cannot,  by  its  own 
assent,  authorize  and  legalize  its  own  dismemberment,  is  a  proposition  contradicted 
by  reason  and  analogy.  That  such  a  measure  is  inconsistent  with  the  motives  and 
ends  of  its  institution,  is  no  more  true  with  regard  to  such  a  body,  than  with  regard 
to  other  associations,  private  or  national.  Even  in  the  case  of  states  and  empires, 
the  unauthorized  separation  of  a  part,  though  originally  illegal,  and  subjecting  the 


separatists  to  reclamation  and  punishment  by  the  remaining  government,  is  legalized 
by  its  subsequent  assent,  with  the  effect  of  establishing,  in  the  separating  portion,  all 
the  rights  of  independence  and  self-government. 

"  It  does  not  admit  of  question  that  such  a  power  belonged  to  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  that  prima  facie  the  General  Conference,  the  supreme  active 
organ  of  its  government,  clothed  with  powers  of  legislation  almost  unlimited,  and 
having  alone,  in  case  of  unlawful  secession,  the  right  of  recognition  or  reclamation, 
might  effectually  exercise  the  power  in  advance.  Indeed,  the  history  of  the  Church 
shows  that  many  years  since,  the  General  Conference,  without  reference  to  its  con- 
stituents, assented  to  the  separation  and  independence  of  the  Canada  Conference, 
then  forming  an  integral  portion  of  the  general  organization,  and  having,  or  entitled 
to  have,  its  delegates  in  the  General  Conference  itself.  And  although  there  seems 
to  have  been  some  doubt  on  the  question  of  power,  we  do  not  perceive  that  the 
grounds  of  that  doubt  bring  in  question  the  power  of  the  General  Conference,  any 
more  than  that  of  the  Church  at  large,  which  is  unquestionable.  The  measure, 
however,  was  adopted,  and  no  doubt  has  been  since  entertained  of  the  lawful  inde- 
pendence of  the  Canada  Conference. 

"  We  think  it  must  be  conceded  that,  in  the  absence  of  express  provision  to  the 
contrary,  the  General  Conference  has  the  right,  on  its  own  judgment  of  the  necessity 
of  the  case,  to  assent  to,  and  thus  to  legalize  the  separation  of  a  part  of  th* 
Church. 

"  The  evidences  in  favour  of  the  validity  of  the  act  of  the  General  Conference  now 
in  question  are  so  strong,  as  almost  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  conclusive  de 
monstration  against  it,  and  certainly  too  strong  to  be  overthrown  by  any  doubtfu 
construction. 

"  If  the  question  of  power  were  doubtful,  we  should  be  bound  to  regard  the  act 
of  the  General  Conference  as  the  act  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  as  effectual. 

"  The  resolutions,  constituting  the  Plan  of  Separation,  do  not  expel  any  individual 
from  the  society  of  which  he  was  a  member,  nor  deprive  him  of  any  privilege  of 
property  or  worship  pertaining  to  that  society.  But  as  they  propose  and  provide 
for  a  complete  separation,  according  to  the  organic  or  territorial  divisions  of  the 
Church,  they  necessarily  involve  a  partition  of  the  governing  power  between  two 
jurisdictions,  each  possessing,  within  its  territorial  limits,  the  same  authority  and 
power  as  had  previously  belonged  to  the  whole  Church. 

"  To  say  that  the  Church  could  not  be  legally  or  rightfully  divided,  according  to 
its  organic  or  territorial  parts,  without  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  members 
of  the  entire  Church,  or  even  of  all  the  members  of  the  part  proposed  to  be  sepa- 
rated, would  be  to  deny  the  power  of  division  by  any  mode  of  action,  since  it  would 
subject  it  to  an  impossible  condition. 

"  And  although  one  or  more  annual  conferences  might  be  incompetent,  by  their 
separate  action,  against  the  consent  of  the  General  Conference,  to  bind  to  an  inde- 
pendent organization  the  local  societies  connected  with  them,  we  are  satisfied  that 
the  joint  and  co-operative  action  of  the  General  Conference  and  the  several  annual 
conferences  concerned,  was  fully  competent  to  determine  the  question,  and  fix  the 
limits,  of  separation,  and  to  establish,  over  the  several  societies  within  whose  limits, 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  new  organization. 

"  In  determining  upon  the  legality  of  the  actual  state  of  things  consequent  upon 
a  great  movement  of  this  character,  every  part  of  the  proceeding  should  be  liberally 
construed,  to  effectuate  the  apparent  and  reasonable  intention  of  the  parties  ;  and  there 
is  no  room  for  technicality.  Then  it  is  apparent  upon  the  face  of  the  resolutions, 
that  there  is  but  one  condition  upon  which  the  separation  and  the  sanction  of  the 
General  Conference  are  to  depend,  which  is,  that  the  annual  conferences  in  the 
slaveholding  States  should  find  it  necessary  to  erect  an  independent  ecclesiastical 
Connexion,  &c.  The  distribution  of  the  Book  Concern  and  Chartered  Fund  is  obvi- 
ously intended  to  be  a  consequence  of  the  separation,  and  not  a  condition  on  which 
it  is  to  depend.  And  the  reference  to  the  several  annual  conferences  for  a  modi- 
fication of  the  restrictive  rule,  was  evidently  for  the  purpose  of  authorizing  the 
intended  distribution,  and  not  of  authorizing  the  separation.  The  slaveholding 
conferences,  referred  to  in  the  first  resolution,  are  such  as  were  situated  wholly  in 
the  slaveholding  States.  And  the  delegates  from  all  these  conferences  assembled 
in  convention,  having  declared  the  necessity  of  separation,  and  erected  an  inde- 
pendent ecclesiastical  Connexion,  the  prescribed  condition  has  been  complied  with 


208 

to  the  actual  necessity  for  separation,  that  is,  the  existence  of  such  a  state  of 
things  as  justified  it,  or  rendered  it  proper,  this,  if  it  could  ever  have  been  a  judicial 
question,  is  no  longer  so.  It  has  been  decided  by  the  concurring  judgment  of  the 
General  Conference  and  the  Southern  or  slaveholding  conferences,  to  which  it  was 
referred,  and  by  the  fact  itself  of  an  actual  separation  by  agreement  between  the 
whole  and  the  separating  part,  which  is  presumptively  the  strongest  evidence  of  a 
\pcdiency,  amounting  to  necessity. 

••  But  the  separation  having,  as  we  have  seen,  been  effected  by  competent  powers 
in  the  Church,  and  under  the  condition  and  in  pursuance  of  the  Plan  prescribed  by 
the  General  Conference,  its  legality,  in  view  of  the  civil  tribunal,  can  be  in  no  degree 
dependent  upon  the  sufficiency  in  point  of  discretion  or  policy  of  the  causes  which 
led  to  it.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  Church,  through  its  competent  agents,  has  author- 
ized the  separate  organization  and  independent  self-government  of  the  Southern  con- 
ferences, and  that  they  have  so  acted  under  the  authority,  as  to  clothe  their  movement 
with  the  sanction  of  the  Church.  This  being  so,  the  Southern  Church  stands  not  as 
a  seceding  or  schismatic  body,  breaking  off  violently  or  illegally  from  the  original 
Church,  and  carrying  with  it  such  members  and  such  rights  only  as  it  may  succeed 
in  abstracting  from  the  other,  but  as  a  lawful  ecclesiastical  body,  erected  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  entire  Church,  with  plenary  jurisdiction  over  a  designated  portion  of 
the  original  association,  recognised  by  that  Church  as  its  proper  successor  and  repre- 
sentative within  its  limits,  commended  as  such  to  the  confidence  and  obedience  of  all 
the  members  within  those  limits,  and  declared  to  be  worthy  of  occupying  towards 
them  the  place  of  the  original  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  of  taking  its  name. 
Such,  though  not  the  express  language,  is  the  plain  and  necessary  import  of  the  reso- 
lutions, in  authorizing  the  formation  of  a  Southern  ecclesiastical  Connexion  or  Church, 
and  prescribing  a  rule  for  ascertaining  its  limits  ;  in  leaving  to  the  unmolested  care 
of  the  anticipated  Southern  Church  all  the  societies,  &c.,  within  its  limits,  and  stipu- 
lating that  within  those  limits  no  new  ones  shall  be  organized  under  the  authority  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  ;  in  declaring  that  ministers  may  take  their  place  in 
the  Southern  Connexion  without  blame  ;  and  in  denominating  the  Southern  Church 
'the  Church,  South.'  The  provision  made  for  a  ratable  distribution  of  the  funds  of 
the  Church,  and  the  relinquishment  of  all  claim  to  the  preaching-houses,  &c.,  within 
the  limits  of  the  Southern  Connexion,  are  of  a  similar  character  with  the  other  features 
of  the  resolutions,  and  attest  the  equity  and  magnanimity  of  the  late  General  Con- 
ference. That  body  had,  however,  no  proprietary  interest  in  the  preaching-houses, 
and  could  only  transfer  its  jurisdiction  over  them,  which  is  done  by  the  resolutions 
and  the  proceedings  under  them. 

'•  The  result  is,  that  the  original  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has  been  authorita- 
tively divided  into  two  Methodist  Episcopal  Churches,  the  one  North  and  the  other 
South  of  a  common  boundary  line,  which,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  limits 
the  extent  and  jurisdiction  of  each ;  that  each,  within  its  own  limits,  is  the  lawful 
successor  and  representative  of  the  original  Church,  possessing  all  its  jurisdiction, 
and  entitled  to  its  name ;  that  neither  has  any  more  right  to  exceed  those  limits 
than  the  other ;  that  the  Southern  Church,  retaining  the  same  faith,  doctrine,  and 
discipline,  and  assuming  the  same  organization  and  name  as  the  original  Church,  is 
not  only  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  is  in  fact,  to  the  South,  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  truly  as  the  other  Church  is  so  to  the  North,  and  is  not  the  less 
so  by  the  addition  of  the  word  South,  to  designate  its  locality.  The  other  Church 
being,  by  the  plan  of  division,  as  certainly  confined  to  the  North  as  this  Church  is  to  the 
South  of  the  dividing  line,  is  as  truly  the  Church,  North,  as  the  Southern  Church  is  the 
Church,  South.  The  difference  in  name  makes  no  difference  in  character  or  authority. 

"  That  the  resolutions  constituting  the  law  of  the  case,  intended  that  the  minority 
should  acquiesce  in  the  determination  of  the  majority,  is  manifest,  not  only  from  their 
general  tenor  and  objects,  but  more  especially  from  the  failure  to  make  any  provision 
for  a  seceding  minority,  and  from  the  express  stipulation  that  the  Church  to  which 
such  minority  might  desire  to  adhere,  shall  organize  no  societies  within  the  limits  of 
the  other. 

"  It  is  sufficient  for  the  purposes  of  this  case  to  have  ascertained,  that  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  within  the  limits  of  its  organization,  as  fixed  under 
the  rule  prescribed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  original  Church,  all  the  rights 
and  jurisdiction  of  that  Church,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  present  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 


209 

"  It  has  already  been  sufficiently  shown,  that  the  addition  of  the  word  '  South  '  to 
the  name  of  the  Southern  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  cannot  affect  the  rights  either 
of  that  Church  or  of  its  members  ;  and  that  the  members  of  a  local  society,  entitled 
to  the  use  of  local  property  under  this  or  other  similar  deed,  before  the  division,  do 
not  lose  their  right  by  adhering  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  under  the 
resolutions  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844." 

MR.  REVERDY  JOHNSON, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  before  the  counsel  for 
the  respondents  proceed  with  the  reading  of  their  proofs,  I  rise  for  the  purpose  of 
staring,  that  upon  the  main  question  of  the  case — the  question  of  the  power  of  the 
General  Conference  to  authorize  a  separation  under  the  authority  of  the  Constitution 
of  that  Conference — I  shall  rely  upon  the  case  of  the  American  Insurance  Company 
vs.  Canter,  in  I  Peter's,  beginning  at  page  511.  That  part  of  the  opinion  on  which  I 
shall  more  particularly  rely,  will  be  found  as  given  by  Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall, 
ou  page  542.  The  language  of  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  as  relates  to  the 
powers  of  the  Conference,  is  to  be  found  on  page  27  of  Proofs,  No.  1,  and  is  in  these 
words : — 

"  The  General  Conference  shall  have  full  powers  to  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  our  Church,  under  the  following  limitations  and  restrictions." 

The  power  thus  subject  to  .restrictions  is  a  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  Church,  or,  in  the  language  of  the  clause,  "  for  our  Church."  The  language  in 
the  third  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  upon 
which  the  case  in  1  Peter's  turns,  is,  "  Congress  shall  have  power  to  dispose  of,  and 
make  all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  or  other  property  be- 
longing to  the  United  States."  This  clause,  so  far  as  it  is  applicable  to  the  power 
of  Congress  over  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  gives  Congress  power  to  make 
all  needful  rules  and  regulations  respecting  the  territory  belonging  to  the  United 
States.  The  power  of  the  General  Conference  is  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  Church.  The  counsel  upon  the  other  side  will  at  once  see  the  purpose  for  which 
I  cite  the  case.  The  question  in  that  case  was,  whence  did  the  government  of  the 
United  States  derive  the  authority,  from  time  to  time,  to  govern  the  territories  by  in- 
volving them  all  under  one  form  of  government,  by  dividing  them  from  time  to  time, 
as  in  the  judgment  of  Congress  a  division  might  be  thought  expedient,  or  by  admit- 
ting them  afterwards  into  the  Union  as  States,  under  the  authority  of  another  clause 
of  the  Constitution1?  The  Chief  Justice,  in  giving  the  opinion,  says,  that  as  they  had 
authority  to  declare  war  under  another  clause,  and  under  another  clause  they  had  the 
authority  to  acquire  by  treaty,  the  acquisition  whether  acquired  by  force  or  by  treaty, 
would  necessarily  carry  with  it  the  authority  to  govern,  and  it  was  unnecessary  to 
dispute  as  to  the  extent  of  the  authority  to  govern,  because  it  was  to  be  found  in  the 
very  words  of  the  third  section  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  Constitution,  which  con- 
veyed to  Congress  the  authority  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  for  the  terri- 
tory of  the  United  States.  If,  therefore,  under  that  power  Congress  may  to-day 
establish  one  territorial  government,  and  may  to-morrow  divide  it,  if  they  may  keep 
that  territorial  government  in  existence  until  such  time  as  they  think  proper  to  admit 
its  inhabitants  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  I  contend  that  the  General  Conference,  as  a 
government  for  the  Church,  has  the  power  to  make  any  form  of  government  for  the 
Church,  subject  to  the  restrictions  imposed,  and  under  the  clause  which  gives  to  the 
Conference  the  authority  to  make  needful  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church. 

MR.  E.  L.  FANCHER, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  I  refer,  in  the  first  place,  as 
to  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference  with  respect  to  the  bishops  as  to  the  system 

14 


210 

and  polity  of  the  Church,  which  requires  that  the  bishops  travel  through  the  Con- 
nexion at  large,  to  book  of  Proofs  No.  1,  pp.  131-134, — "Extracts  from  the  Address 
of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844,"  which  is  dated  New- York,  May 
2d,  1844,  signed  by  all  the  bishops,  including  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew,  who  are 
now  bishops  in  the  Southern  Church. 

"  It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  those  fundamental  principles  which  define  and 
limit  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference,  and  secure  the  privileges  of  every  minis- 
ter and  member,  were  settled  by  the  body  of  ministers  assembled  in  conventional 
form,  with  great  unanimity,  after  long,  deliberate,  and  careful  investigation.  And 
it  is  equally  worthy  of  regard,  that  the  Church,  with  almost  unanimous  consent,  and 
with  heart- felt  satisfaction,  looked  to  the  system  as  a  haven  of  safety,  and  a  dwell- 
ing-place of '  quietness  and  assurance.' 

"  In  this  happy  state  of  things,  embracing  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  volun- 
tary principle,  the  ministers  dependant  upon  the  people  whom  they  served  in  the 
Gospel  word  and  ordinances,  and  the  people  united  to  their  ministers  by  the  bonds 
of  affection  and  esteem,  the  work  of  the  Lord  steadily  advanced ;  new  and  extensive 
fields  of  labour  were  constantly  opening  before  us ;  the  borders  of  our  Zion  were 
oreatly  enlarged ;  and  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  were  brought  under  Divine  in- 
fluence, and  joined  in  the  communion  of  the  Church.  The  events  of  each  succeed- 
ing year  have  afforded  additional  proofs  of  the  soundness  of  the  system,  and  of  its 
adaptation  to  the  ends  for  which  it  was  designed. 

"  The  general  itinerant  superintendency,  vitally  connected,  as  it  is  believed  to  be, 
with  the  effective  operation,  if  not  with  the  very  existence,  of  the  whole  itinerant  sys- 
tem, cannot  be  too  carefully  examined  or  too  safely  guarded.  And  we  have  no 
doubt  but  you  will  direct  your  inquiries  into  such  channels  as  to  ascertain  whether 
there  has  been  any  departure  from  its  essential  principles,  or  delinquency  in  the  ad- 
ministration in  carrying  it  into  execution ;  and  in  case  of  the  detection  of  error,  to 
apply  such  correction  as  the  matter  may  require. 

"  There  are  several  points  in  this  system  which  are  of  primary  importance,  and  on 
that  account  should  be  clearly  understood.  The  office  of  a  bishop  or  superintendent, 
according  to  our  ecclesiastical  system,  is  almost  exclusively  executive ;  wisely  limited 
in  its  powers,  and  guarded  by  such  checks  and  responsibilities  as  can  scarcely  fail  to 
secure  the  ministry  and  membership  against  any  oppressive  measures,  even  should 
these  officers  so  far  forget  the  sacred  duties  and  obligations  of  their  holy  vocation  as 
to  aspire  to  be  lords  over  God's  heritage. 

"  So  far  from  being  irresponsible  in  their  office,  they  are  amenable  to  the  General 
Conference,  not  only  for  their  moral  conduct,  and  for  the  doctrines  they  teach,  but 
also  for  the  faithful  administration  of  the  government  of  the  Church,  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Discipline,  and  for  all  decisions  which  they  make  on  questions  of 
ecclesiastical  law.  In  all  these  cases  this  body  has  original  jurisdiction,  and  may 
prosecute  to  final  issue  in  expulsion,  from  which  decision  there  is  no  appeal. 

"  With  these  safeguards  thrown  around  them,  we  trust  the  Church  has  nothing  to 
fear  from  the  exercise  of  that  authority  which  has  been  committed  to  them  in  trust,  to 
be  used  for  the  conservation  of  the  whole  body,  and  for  the  extension  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom,  and  not  to  oppress  or  afflict  any.  Without  entering  minutely 
into  the  details  of  what  is  involved  in  the  superintendency,  as  it  is  constituted  in  our 
Church,  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  design  to  notice  its  several  departments. 

"  1st.   Confirming  orders,  by  ordaining  deacons  and  elders. 

"2d.  Presiding  in  the  General  and  Annual  Conferences.  But  there  is  a  marked 
difference  in  the  relations  the  president  sustains  to  these  two  bodies.  The  General 
Conference,  being  the  highest  judicatory  of  the  Church,  is  not  subject  to  the  official 
direction  and  control  of  the  president  any  further  than  the  order  of  business  and  the 
preservation  of  decorum  are  concerned  ;  and  even  this  is  subject  to  rules  originating 
in  the  body.  The  right  to  transact  business,  with  respect  to  matter,  mode,  and  order 
of  time,  is  vested  in  the  Conference,  and  limited  only  by  constitutional  provisions ; 
and  of  these  provisions,  so  far  as  their  official  acts  are  concerned,  the  Conference,  and 
not  the  president,  must  be  the  judge. 

"  II.  Having  noticed  in  what  the  superintendency  chiefly  consists,  it  is  proper  to 
observe  that  the  plan  of  its  operation  is  general,  embracing  the  whole  work  in  con- 
nexional  order,  and  not  diocesan,  or  sectional.  Consequently  any  division  of  the 

14* 


211 

work  into  districts,  or  otherwise,  so  as  to  create  a  particular  charge,  with  any  other 
view,  or  in  any  order,  than  as  a  prudential  measure  to  secure  to  all  the  conferences 
the  annual  visits  of  the  superintendents,  would  be  an  innovation  on  the  system. 

"  III.  If  we  have  taken  a  correct  view  of  this  subject,  our  superintendency  must  be 
•itinerant,  and  not  local.  It  was  wisely  provided  in  the  system  of  Methodism,  from  its 
very  foundation,  that  it  should  be  the  duty  of  the  superintendent '  to  travel  through  the 
Connexion  at  large.'  And  although  the  extension  of  geographical  boundaries,  and  the 
great  increase  of  the  annual  conferences,  have  made  it  necessary  to  increase  the 
number  of  the  bishops,  still  the  duty  required,  and  the  obligation  to  perform  it,  re- 
main the  same. 

"  That  such  a  system  as  our  itinerant  ministry  could  not  be  preserved  in  harmo- 
nious and  efficient  operation  under  the  direction  of  local  bishops,  is  too  obvious  to  re- 
quire proof.  If  we  preserve  a  travelling  ministry,  we  must  have  travelling  superin- 
tendents. They  must  add  to  their  official  authority  the  power  of  their  example. 
Remove  the  latter,  and  the  former  will  be  divested  of  the  chief  element  of  its 
strength. 

"  It  is,  indeed,  a  work  which  requires  a  measure  of  the  zeal,  and  self-sacrificing 
spirit  of  the  apostles,  and  first  ministers  of  Christ,  who  followed  them.  And  we  de- 
voutly pray  that  the  ministry  may  never  so  far  relax  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  the 
great  commission,  '  Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,' 
as  to  lack  men  well  qualified  for  this  vocation — men  whose  minds,  grasping  the  work 
of  God  in  all  its  length  and  breadth,  will  count  nothing  dear  to  themselves  as  apper- 
taining to  the  present  life ;  but  giving  themselves  wholly  to  God  and  his  Church,  will 
live,  and  labour,  and  suffer  for  the  promotion  of  Christ's  kingdom  and  the  salvation 
of  souls. 

"  With  the  foregoing  remarks  on  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  superinten- 
dents, we  submit  to  your  consideration  the  importance  of  having  this  department  sup- 
plied with  such  a  number  of  effective  men  as  will  enable  them,  in  consecutive  order, 
to  travel  through  the  whole  Connexion  without  subjecting  any  one  to  such  a  con- 
tinued weight  of  care  and  labour  as  is  sufficient  to  prostrate  the  mental  and  physical 
energies  of  the  strongest  constitution,  and  thereby  indirectly  defeat  the  ends  de- 
signed to  be  accomplished ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  guard  against  the  increase 
of  the  number  beyond  the  actual  demands  of  the  work.  In  whatever  light  we  view 
it,  but  especially  in  the  light  of  example,  the  existence  of  a  sinecure  in  the  episco- 
pacy should  be  regarded  as  no  ordinary  evil. 

"  JOSHUA  SOULE, 
ELIJAH  HEDDING, 
JAMES  0.  ANDREW, 
B.  WAUGH, 

"New-York,  May  2,  1844.      '  THOS.  A.  MORRIS." 

I  refer  next,  as  to  the  usage  of  the  General  Conference  in  canvassing  the  votes  of 
the  annual  conferences  on  a  proposed  change  of  the  restrictive  articles,  to  Proofs  No. 
1,  pp.  43,  46,  and  47.  I  also  refer  to  p.  47,  to  show  that  all  the  annual  conferences, 
including  the  Southern  annual  conferences,  in  the  Canada  case;  admitted  the  neces- 
sity of  a  change  in  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  before  any  part  o/  the  profits  of  the  Book 
Concern  could  be  apportioned  to  the  Canada  Conference.  On  p.  43  is  this  minute 
from  the  journals  of  the  General  Conference  : — 

"  Resolved,  <fa.,  That  until  the  will  of  the  annual  conferences  shall  be  ascertained, 
and  a  final  settlement  be  made,  the  Canada  Conference  shall  receive  the  same  equal 
annual  dividend  of  the  profits  of  the  Book  Concern  as  heretofore. 

"  5th.  A  motion  for  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  was  made,  voted,  and  carried. 

"  On  motion,  The  secretary  is  hereby  directed  to  furnish  the  delegates  from 
Canada  with  a  copy  of  the  decision  of  this  Conference  on  that  business. 

"  The  resolution  was  presented  to  the  annual  conferences,  and  the  following  was 
the  result,  (according  to  the  minutes  of  the  secretary  of  the  committee  to  whom  the 
business  was  referred,  at  the  General  Conference  of  1836  :) — " 

Then  follows  an  address  which  is  out  of  its  place.  On  p.  46  commences  the  re- 
port of  this  committee  : — 


212 


"  CINCINNATI,  OHIO,  May  6,  1836. 

"  Committee  cm  Canada  Claims  met  on  Friday  evening,  May  6th,  at  the  Preachers' 
Office,  Cincinnati.  Committee  consists  of  II.  Paine,  T.  A.  Morris,  A.  Griffith, 
M.  Richardson,  and  C.  Sherman.  The  whole  committee  present.  C.  Sherman 
chosen  secretary.  Rev.  Mr.  Lord  presented  to  the  committee  a  copy  of  the  resolu- 
tions of  the  General  Conference  of  1828  and  of  1832,  on  the  subject  of  an  appro- 
priation from  the  Book  Concern  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  the  Canada 
Conference,  which  was  read.  (See  Doc.  Nos.  1  and  2.)  Copies  of  the  resolutions 
of  the  annual  conferences,  concurring  or  non-concurring  with  the  General  Conference 
resolution,  were  then  handed  to  the  committee  by  Rev.  B.  Waugh,  and  read.  (See 
Doc.  No.  3.)  The  conferences  concurring  were  as  follow  : — 

New-England  Conference,  held  June,  1832 Ayes  73 

Maine  Conference,  held  July  24,  1832 

New-Hampshire  Conference,  held  August  8,  1832 

Oneida  Conference,  held  1833 

Genesee  Conference,  held  July,  1832  _ 

New- York  Conference,  held  June  9,  1833 


71 
71 
77 
69 

142 


Noes  1 
0 
0 
2 
1 
13 


Six  conferences. 


For  concurrence,  503    Against,  17 
"  The  conferences  non-concurring  were  as  follow  : — 

Kentucky  Conference,  held  Oct.  22,  1832     Non-concurring,  66    Concurring,  0 

Indiana  Conference,  held  October  17,  1832 

Pittsburgh  Conference,  held  August  23,  1832 

South  Carolina  Conference,  held  April  22,  1833... 

Mississippi  Conference,  held  May  15,  1833 

Ohio  Conference 

Holstein  Conference,  held  March  29,  1833 

Virginia  Conference,  held  March  6,  1833 

Baltimore  Conference,  held  April  5,  J833 

Philadelphia  Conference,  held  April  24,  1833 

Missouri  Conference 

Georgia  Conference 

Alabama  Conference 

Illinois  Conference 

Tennessee  Conference 


36 
61 
26 
15 
62 
34 
84 
90 
89 
24 
41 
22 
19 
72 


0 

6 

24 

7 
28 
8 
0 
0 
1 
2 
13 
3 
2 
2 


Fifteen  conferences  non-concurring. 


Number  for,  741       Against,  96 
17  503 


Whole  number  in  the  several  conferences  against,  758 
«  "  "  "  for,         599 


For,  599 


Majority  against  granting  Canada  claims,      159 

•  Brother  Case  then  addressed  the  committee,  making  several  remarks  and  state- 
ments in  favour  of  the  claims  being  answered.  Committee  was  then  addressed  by 
brother  Lord.  After  some  information,  obtained  by  brother  Waugh,  committee  ad- 
journed, to  meet  again  next  Tuesday  evening. 

"  (Signed,)  C.  SHERMAN,  Sec'y." 

To  show  that  the  annual  conferences  of  the  South  voted  upon  the  proposition  to 
change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  in  1844,  I  refer  to  the  report  on  the  Journal  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1848,  p.  177.  That  report  has  already  been  read. 

MK.  LORD, — Mr.  Fancher,  do  you  consider  that  report  as  evidence  on  the  subject  \ 
MR.  FANCHER, — It  is  in  evidence. 

MR.  LORD, — The  report  is  evidence  that  somebody  said  such  was  the  fact ;  but  it 
ia  not  evidence  of  the  fact.  ,  .  \ 

MR.  FANCHER, — I  understood  that  it  might  be  read. 


213 

MR.  WOOD, — It  may  be  read  subject  to  the  decision  of  the  Court. 

MR.  LORD, — If  ray  friend  will  read  any  one  of  the  certificates  from  the  annual 
conferences  as  to  the  result,  I  will  admit  that  the  numbers  stated  in  the  report  are 
correct.  I  wish  the  Court  to  see  how  the  question  was  submitted  to  the  annual 
conferences. 

MR.  FANCHER, — I  will  read  the  certificate  from  the  Troy  Conference. 

"  TROY  ANNUAL  CONFERENCE,  FRIDAY  AFTERNOON,  JUNE  28,  1844. — "  The 
president  brought  before  the  conference  the  third  resolution  in  the  series  adopted 
by  the  General  Conference,  relative  to  the  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  arti- 
cle of  the  Discipline,  and  other  matters  ;  so  that  the  first  clause  shall  read  as 
follows :— '  They  shall  not  appropriate  the  produce  of  the  Book  Concern,  nor  of 
the  Chartered  Fund,  to  any  purpose  other  than  for  the  benefit  of  the  travelling,  super- 
numerary, superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children, 
and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be  determined  on  by  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the 
members  of  the  General  Conference.' 

"  The  question  being  taken  on  the  motion  to  adopt  the  resolution,  it  prevailed — 
one  hundred  and  twenty -three  voting  in  the  affirmative,  and  six  in  the  negative." 

"  I  hereby  certify  that  the  .above  is  a  true  extract  from  the  Journals  of  the  Troy 
Annual  Conference. 

"J.  B.  HOUOHTALING,  Secretary  of  the  Troy  Annual  Conference. 

"  WEST  TROY,  March  7th,  1851." 

MR.  LORD, — I  am  now  ready  to  admit  the  number  stated  in  the  report  ;  and  I  will 
sign  a  consent  to  that  effect  with  you. 

MR.  FANCHER, — That  is  not  material ;  the  report  states  the  numbers,  and  the 
report  is  before  the  Court. 

MR.  LORD, — The  report  is  before  the  Court,  to  show  that  such  a  report  was  made ; 
but  it  does  not,  of  itself,  prove  the  facts  there  stated.  We  will  sign  a  consent,  how- 
ever. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — If  the  counsel  insists,  the  facts  stated  in  the  report  cannot  be 
considered  proper  and  legal  evidence  of  those  facts  ;  the  report  is  only  evidence  that 
such  a  report  was  made. 

MR.  LORD, — I  will  sign  a  consent  to  the  admission  as  evidence  of  the  numbers 
stated  in  the  report. 

MR.  EWING, — The  consent  can  be  signed  in  the  recess. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — I  understood  the  counsel  in  his  argument  to  concede  that  the 
necessary  number  of  votes  was  not  given  to  authorize  a  change  of  the  restrictive 
article. 

MR.  LORD, — They  have  not  proved  that  the  requisite  number  was  not  given, 

MR  FANCHER, — It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  prove  it.  In  the  complaint  they  as- 
sert that  the  necessary  number  of  votes  was  obtained.  We  denied  it  in  our  answer. 
Therefore  the  proof  was  for  them  to  furnish. 

JUDGE  BETTS, — Let  me  suggest  that  it  would  be,  perhaps,  advisable  for  Mr. 
Fancher  to  yield  to  Mr.  Lord's  suggestion,  in  order  to  give  perfectness  to  the  evi- 
dence. The  case  should  not  be  put  to  the  peril,  if  it  should  go  further,  of  being  sent 
back  on  account  of  informality  in  the  admission  of  evidence. 


214 

MR.  FANCHER, — Very  well.  We  have  acted  on  the  principle  that  what  was  the 
truth  should  be  submitted. 

MR.  LORD, — My  friend  has  acted  on  that  principle  throughout. 

MR.  FANCHER, — I  refer,  in  the  next  place,  to  show  that  thousands  of  ministers 
and  members  in  the  territory  of  the  Church,  South,  were  adverse  to  the  proceedings 
of  their  Southern  brethren,  and  preferred  to  remain  in  the  Church  of  their  early 
choice,  to  the  Journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  pp.  19  and  37,  where  peti- 
tions were  presented  from  the  South  on  the  subject ;  to  the  journal  of  1848,  pp.  116 
and  117,  where  reports  were  made  on  the  subject;  and  p.  175,  where  the  General 
Conference  mention  it  in  their  Pastoral  Address. 

MR.  LORD, — That,  you  will  understand,  is  not  admitted.  It  is  admitted  that  it 
was  reported  to  your  Conference  that  such  was  the  fact. 

MR.  FANCHER, — I  do  not  understand  it  as  evidence  of  anything,  except  that  such  a 
report  was  made  to  us. 

MR.  JOHNSON, — How  did  the  subject  come  before  the  Conference  of  1848 1 
MR.  FANCHER, — On  petitions  to  the  General  Conference  of  1848. 
MR.  JOHNSON, — Have  you  got  the  petitions  before  you  1 
MR.  FANCHER, — No,  sir. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — If  you  deem  this  material,  Mr.  Fancher,  it  must  be  proved  by 
some  other  evidence,  or  be  admitted  by  consent  of  the  counsel  on  the  other  side. 

MR.  JOHNSON, — We  do  not  admit  the  facts  there  stated. 

MR.  FANCHER, — The  journal  of  the  Conference  of  1848  is,  I  believe,  admitted 
under  the  same  consent  as  Book  No.  2.  We  refer,  therefore,  to  the  facts  there  stated 
in  the  same  light,  and  expect  the  same  effect  to  be  attributed  to  them,  as  they  refer 
to  their  Book  No.  2. 

MR.  EWINO, — That  is  the  true  exposition  of  the  matter. 
MR.  LORD, — I  will  sign  a  consent. 

JUDGE  BETTS, — The  stipulation  admits  these  journals  to  be  "  considered  as  duly 
authenticated  and  verified  by  proof." 

MR.  FANCHER, — The  journal  of  the  Conference  of  1848  is  admitted  under  the 
same  stipulation  as  Book  No.  2.  I  shall  ask  no  more  on  this  point  than  that  the 
Court  take  a  note  of  these  references,  and  give  them  what  effect  they  may  be  enti- 
tled to. 

I  refer  also  to  the  journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  pp.  164-171,  as  o 
alleged  infractions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation.  This  is  also  in  Proofs  No.  1, 
pp.  154-164:— 

"  Infractions  of  the  Plan. 

"  The  attention  of  the  committee  has  been  directed,  by  sundry  memorials  submit 
ted  to  their  consideration  by  the  General  Conference,  to  numerous  infractions  of  the 
provisions  of  the  so-called  Plan  of  Separation,  upon  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 


215 

pal  Church,  South  ;  and  upon  this  subject  present  to  the  Conference  the  following 
statement  and  facts  : — 

"  I.    The  Methodist  Episcopal   Church,   South,   has  officially  and  authoritatively 
taught  the  infraction  of  the  Plan  by  her  Convention,  her  General   Conference,  her 
Bishops,  her  Annual  Conferences,  her  Elders,  and  leading  Ministers. 
"  I.   The  Louisville  Convention  taught  the  violation  of  the  Plan. 
"In  the  report  on  organization,  passed  Saturday,  the  17th  of  May,  1845,  the  new 
Church  is  declared  to  be  formed  out  of  the  conferences  represented  in  the  convention. 
(See  History  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  p.  186.)     But  while  the 
convention  in  their  formal  acts  of  organization,  on  Saturday,  the  17th  of  May,  make 
this  declaration,  we  find  them  on  the  Monday  following  passing  these  resolutions, 
(See  Western  Christian  Advocate,  vol.  xiii,  page  42,  col.  7,) — 

"' '  Resolved,  That  should  any  portion  of  an  annual  conference,  on  the  line  of 
separation,  not  represented  in  this  convention,  adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  according  to  the  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  at  the  late  General  Con- 
ference, and  elect  delegates  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church  in  1846,  upon 
the  basis  of  representation  adopted  by  the  convention,  they  shall  be  accredited  as 
members  of  the  General  Conference. 

"  « Resolved,  That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  convention,  those  societies  and  stations 
on  the  border,  within  the  limits  of  conferences  represented  in  this  convention,  be  con- 
structively understood  as  adhering  to  the  South,  unless  they  see  proper  to  take  action 
on  the  subject ;  and  in  all  such  cases,  we  consider  the  pastor  of  the  station  or  society 
the  proper  person  to  preside  in  the  meeting.' 

"  Thus,  although  the  convention,  in  their  formal  organization,  confine  themselves 
to  the  original  limits  ;  yet  two  days  after,  when  the  way  was  prepared  for  further 
inroads,  they  enlarge  the  provisions  of  the  Plan,  and  extend  it  into  the  boundaries  of 
the  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  and  other  conferences.  And  in  all  societies  within  the 
border  where  no  votes  would  be  taken,  these  societies  must  be  constructively  under- 
stood as  adhering  to  the  South.  Hence  their  preachers  have  generally  prevented 
any  voting  wherever  they  could  by  any  means  hinder  it ;  although  the  Plan  of  the 
General  Conference  required  the  societies  to  vote.  The  conclusion  is,  that  the  con- 
vention taught  the  infraction  of  the  Plan  in  two  very  important  respects. 

"  First.  They  exceed  the  provisions  of  the  Plan  by  extending  it  into  the  territory 
of  the  Baltimore,  Philadelphia,  Pittsburgh,  and  other  conferences.  Thus  they  teach 
to  cross  the  line. 

"  Secondly.  And  in  all  societies  where  no  vote  would  be  taken,  they  claim  them 
constructively  as  belonging  to  their  Church. 

"  2.  The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  have  taught  the  infrac- 
tion of  the  Plan. 

"  Bishop  Soule,  in  his  letter  dated  Lebanon,  Ohio,  August  4th,  1845,  and  pub- 
lished in  the  Western  Christian  Advocate  of  August  22d,  1845,  vol.  xiii,  p.  75, 
col.  2,  teaches  the  breach  of  the  Plan.  It  is  addressed  '  to  the  preachers  and  border 
societies  of  the  Kentucky  and  Missouri  Conferences,  and  of  other  conferences  bor- 
dering upon  them.'  The  bishop  here  calls  on  the  societies  on  the  Southern  verge  of 
the  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Iowa  Conferences,  to  vote  whether  they  will,  or  will 
not,  remain  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Bishop  Soule,  however,  makes 
these  regulatious  in  reference  to  his  own  administration.  But  this  same  course  was 
sanctioned  by  Bishop  Andrew  immediately,  and  afterward  by  their  General  Confer- 
ence, and  by  all  their  bishops.  And  indeed  Bishop  Soule,  in  his  letter  to  the  Rev. 
Wesley  G.  Montgomery,  dated  Nashville,  April  30th,  1847,  and  published  in  the 
Western  Christian  Advocate  of  May  21st,  1847,  hints  broadly  enough  that  minorities 
had  best  be  accommodated.  He  says :  '  Minorities  on  either  side  of  the  line  of  divi- 
sion are  entitled  to  a  kind  and  respectful  consideration,  and  should  be  treated  accord- 
ingly. And  I  should  think  it  far  better  for  such  minorities,  being  on  the  borders,  to 
receive  preachers  from  the  Church  to  which  they  desire  to  adhere,  provided  they 
believe  themselves  able  to  support  them,  than  for  majorities  to  be  interdicted  the 
exercise  of  a  right  plainly  secured  to  them  by  the  provisions  of  the  law,  or  rule,  in  the 
case.'  Now  with  this  instruction  about  minorities,  as  well  as  the  maintenance  that 
the  line  is  a  sliding  one,  and  no  limits  of  time  are  given  in  which  its  sliding  opera- 
tion ceases,  Southern  preachers  will  find  little  difficulty  in  passing  over  any  limits 
which  may  be  in  the  way. 

"But  Bishop  Capers'  letter  to  Rev.  Mr.  Moorman,  and  published  in  the  Christian 


216 

Advocate  and  Journal  of  April  21st,  1847,  claims  all  the  territory  in  the  slaveholding 
States,  and  this  too  according  to  the  Plan,  or,  as  he  calls  it,  the  '  Deed  of  Separation.' 
Now  as  Bishop  Capers  claims  all  slaveholding  territory  and  Bishop  Soule  as  much 
of  the  territories  of  the  free  States  as  the  accommodation  of  minorities  and  the  slid- 
ing line  will  transfer,  it  would  be  difficult  indeed  to  fix  any  line  at  all. 

"  It  were  useless  to  insist,  in  a  matter  so  clear,  that  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  have  taught  officially  the  violation  of  the  Plan. 

"  3.  The  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  has  taught 
the  infraction  of  the  Plan. 

"  For  proof  of  this  we  need  go  no  further  than  the  famous  report  on  the  episcopa 
cy,  in  which  the  Conference  sanctions  the  breaches  of  the  Plan  as  taught  by  the  con- 
vention, and  as  was  taught  and  practised  by  Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew,  from  the 
session  of  the  convention  in  May,  1845,  to  the  session  of  the  Conference  in  May, 
1846.  This  document  will  be  found  in  the  Western  Christian  Advocate  of  June  26th, 
1846,  and  in  the  Richmond  Advocate  of  May  21st,  1846.  The  report  fully  clears 
Bishops  Soule  and  Andrew  of  any  blame  for  occupying  Cincinnati,  the  Kanawha 
district,  &c.,  and  gives  such  full  latitude  of  interpretation,  that  the  limitations  of  the 
Plan  became  a  perfect  nullity.  Our  limits  will  not  allow  us  to  quote  the  report, 
but  it  can  be  perused  in  the  papers,  as  cited  above,  as  well  as  in  all  the  Southern 
papers. 

"  4.  The  annual  conferences,  editors,  and  leading  members  of  the  new  Church, 
maintain  the  infraction  of  the  Plan  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  acts  of  their  conven- 
tion, their  General  Conference,  and  their  bishops. 

"  It  were  useless  to  make  quotations  on  this  point.  Their  press  teems  with  ap- 
proving acts  of  annual  conferences,  and  the  laboured  essays  and  constant  admissions 
of  editors  and  correspondents,  upholding  fully  their  conventional,  episcopal,  and 
General  Conference  decisions  and  acts.  And  from  all  this  there  is  no  dissent  in  any 
quarter. 

"  II.  The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  their  official  admin- 
istration, have  actually  broken  the  Plan. 

"  As  undoubted  and  official  testimony  on  this  point,  we  need  only  quote  the  report 
on  this  subject,  by  our  excellent  and  devoted  bishops,  which,  at  the  request  of  the 
General  Conference,  they  furnished  the  committee.  This  official  document  is  as  fol- 
lows : — 

"  '  To  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church. 

"  '  In  compliance  with  a  request  of  the  General  Conference,  made  on  the  6th  in- 
stant, the  superintendents  present  to  you  such  information  as  they  possess  in  regard 
to  alleged  infractions  of  the  "  Plan  of  Separation,"  on  the  part  of  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  by  which  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  has  been  injuriously  deprived  of  portions  of  its  territory  and  members. 
They  must  be  understood  as  giving  the  most  authentic  statements  which  have  come 
TO  their  ears,  without  vouching  their  own  personal  knowledge  for  the  correctness  of 
every  item  thus  presented.  They  are,  nevertheless,  impressed  with  a  conviction  of 
the  truth  of  the  statements  generally,  as  hereinafter  made. 

"  '  They  commence  first  with  Baltimore  Conference.  Within  its  bounds  there  is 
a  portion  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  situated  between  the  Potomac  and  Rappahannock 
Rivers,  commonly  called  the  "  Northern  Neck,"  embracing  the  counties  of  King 
George,  Westmoreland,  Richmond,  Northumberland,  and  Lancaster.  These  coun- 
ties contained  the  following  circuits,  (having  a  membership  of  eight  hundred  to  a 
thousand,)  namely,  King  George,  Westmoreland,  and  Lancaster,  each  having  preach- 
ers annually  appointed  to  it  from  the  Baltimore  Conference.  At  different  times  each 
of  those  circuits  determined  to  attach  themselves  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
not  as  border  societies,  but  as-  circuits.  To  all  of  them  preachers  have  been  sent 
from  the  Virginia  Conference,  who  are  there  at  present,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  min- 
isters of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  From  the  conference  of  1847  preachers 
were  sent  to  this  portion  of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  who  found  on  their  arrival 
the  circuits  under  the  pastoral  care  of  ministers  of  the  Virginia  Conference.  The 
ministers  sent  from  the  Baltimore  Conference,  not  being  able  to  have  access  to 
the  preaching-places  or  societies,  were  withdrawn  after  suitable  time,  and  sent  to 
places  where  they  were  needed,  except  one,  who  was  left  in  charge  of  the  whole 
field  of  labour.  At  present  this  place  appears  on  the  minutes,  "  to  be  supplied." 


217 

No  minister  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  now  in  this  ancient  portion  of  the 
Baltimore  Conference. 

"  '  Warrenton  circuit  has  been  occupied  between  one  and  two  years  with  preachers 
from  the  Virginia  Conference  ;  but  as  the  circuit  did  not  go  to  the  Church,  South,  in 
whole,  a  portion  thereof  continuing  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  a  preacher 
from  the  Baltimore  Conference  has  been  continued  there.  Some  of  the  societies 
which  voted  to  go  to  the  Church,  South,  were  strictly  border  societies,  but  others  also 
went  which  were  as  strictly  interior  societies.  One  of  the  churches,  (Wesley  Cha- 
pel,) where  a  majority  adhered  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  was  forcibly  en- 
tered and  new  locks  were  attached  to  the  doors ;  and  the  Church,  South,  has  it  in 
possession  at  the  present  time,  unless  the  civil  court  has  recently  decided  a  suit, 
which  was  instituted  for  the  property,  in  favour  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

"  « Harrisonburg,  in  Rockingham  county,  Virginia,  unquestionably  an  interior  soci- 
ety, having  by  a  majority  of  votes  determined  to  connect  themselves  with  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South,  a  preacher  from  the  Virginia  Conference  has  been  ap- 
pointed to  labour  there.  A  minority  adhering  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
are  under  the  pastoral  care  of  one  of  its  ministers.  The  church  was  in  a  course  of  liti- 
gation a  few  months  since,  and  probably  the  case  has  not  been  decided  by  the  court. 
An  attempt  was  made  to  get  possession  of  the  parsonage  in  Harrisojiburg  for  the 
Church,  South,  but  with  what  success  there  is  no  information. 

"  '  Leesburg,  a  station  belonging  to  the  Baltimore  Conference,  clearly  an  interior 
society,  has  been  visited  by  a  preacher  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
much  agitation  produced  in  the  society  and  in  the  community,  and  a  suit  at  law  com- 
menced for  the  church  edifice.  Whether  the  effort  is  still  persisted  in  to  occupy  this 
place  is  not  certainly  known.  That  which  makes  this  case  even  a  glaring  one,  is  the 
fact,  that  the  majority  of  the  society  voted  to  adhere  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  There  are  other  instances  of  the  violation  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  in  the 
opinion  of  some  equally  apparent  with  the  instances  given  in  this  paper,  of  which 
more  certain  information  may  be  obtained  from  Rev.  Messrs.  William  Hamilton, 
N.  J.  B.  Morgan,  S.  A.  Roszel,  John  Bear,  and  J.  A.  Collins,  members  of  this  Gene- 
ral Conference. 

"  '  Kanawha  District,  in  the  North- West  part  of  Virginia,  is  a  part  of  Ohio  Confer- 
ence. In  1845  that  work  was  supplied  from  the  Ohio  Conference,  as  usual.  The 
preachers  were  received,  with  one  exception,  as  far  as  we  know,  namely  Parkersburg 
station.  A  part  of  the  members  there  refused  to  receive  any  preacher  from  Ohio 
Conference.  They  rejected  the  preacher  sent  to  them,  not  for  any  objection  to  him 
personally,  but  because  he  came  from  Ohio  ;  and  by  threats  of  violence,  and  prepa- 
ration to  execute  those  threats  on  a  given  day,  compelled  him  to  leave  the  place,  and 
took  possession  of  the  chapel.  He,  however,  returned  after  some  weeks,  and  in  con- 
nexion with  the  preacher  of  the  adjoining  circuit,  to  which  they  were  transferred, 
served  the  remaining  members  of  the  scattered  flock  in  another  house.  These  out- 
cast members  have  since  erected  a  chapel  for  themselves,  in  which  they  worship  un- 
disturbed ;  while  the  old  chapel  is  supplied  from  Kentucky  Conference,  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South.  Parkersburg  is  not  a  border  station.  It  is  the  county- 
seat  of  Wood  county,  situated  at  the  junction  of  Little  Kanawha  and  Ohio  Rivers, 
and  is  about  seventy-five  miles  from  the  nearest  point  of  the  Kentucky  State  line  ; 
so  that  the  Kentucky  preachers  had  to  travel  that  distance  through  our  work  to  reach 
it,  though  they  now  occupy  other  places  through  our  work  between  that  and  Ken- 
tucky. No  preachers  were  appointed  from  the  Kentucky  Conference  of  1845  to  the 
Kanawha  district ;  but  some  were  sent  there,  as  we  learn,  during  that  conference 
year,  by  a  presiding  elder,  that  made  breaches  in  some  of  our  circuits.  In  1846  the 
Kanawha  district  was  all  supplied  from  the  Ohio  Conference,  as  usual,  though  the  soci- 
eties in  some  places  were  divided  by  Southern  influence.  A  few  weeks  afterward 
a  second  supply  was  sent  from  Kentucky  Conference,  as  we  learned  from  the  news- 
papers. Since  that  time  there  have  been  two  presiding  elders,  and  two  sets  of 
preachers  there  ;  one  from  Ohio  Conference,  and  the  other  from  Kentucky  Confer- 
ence. Indeed  it  is  alleged  that,  at  the  last  session  of  the  Kentucky  Conference,  they 
divided  the  district ;  so  that  the  old  Kanawha  district  is  now  occupied  by  three  pre- 
siding elders — one  from  Ohio,  and  two  from  Kentucky. 

"  '  These  are  the  most  material  facts  which  have  been  reported  to  us,  bearing  on 
the  point  of  inquiry  submitted  to  us,  so  far  as  Kanawha  district  is  concerned 


218 

"  '  "  Souk  Chapel"  Cincinnati. — In  1834  Cincinnati,  which  had  previously  been 
one  charge,  was  divided  into  two,  "  Wesley  Chapel"  and  "  Fourth-street."  Each 
had  definite  bounds,  within  which  the  stationed  minister  had  exclusive  pastoral  func- 
tions. Private  members  were  advised  to  observe  these  limits  in  fixing  and  holding 
their  membership,  but  were  not  considered  bound  to  do  so,  and  did  not  in  all  cases 
practise  it.  But  class-meetings,  &c.,  were  held  in  strict  regard  to  this  provision. 

"  '  New  preaching  places  have  been  opened  in  these  charges,  under  the  direction 
and  countenance  of  the  presiding  elder  and  preachers  in  charge,  have  matured  socie- 
ties, and  have  been  finally  formed  into  stations  by  the  presiding  bishops,  and  received 
preachers. 

"  « In  1844  the  first  city  missionary  was  appointed,  and  was  supported  by  a  City 
Missionary  Society,  whose  object  was  to  carry  the  Gospel  to  the  destitute.  The  first 
year,  with  the  approbation  of  those  having  authority  to  direct  him,  he  formed  three 
societies,  namely,  the  Bethel,  Ebenezer,  and  Maley  Chapel,  and  succeeded  in  erect- 
ing two  small  chapels  for  "  Ebenezer"  and  "  Maley,"  in  the  North- West  part  of  the 
city  and  suburbs.  By  permission,  he  exercised  pastoral  authority  in  some  or  all  of 
these  societies. 

"  '  In  1845  the  same  brother,  Rev.  G.  W.  Maley,  was  reappointed  to  the  same 
mission.  At  the  same  time  two  of  the  aforesaid  societies,  Bethel  and  Ebenezer, 
were  made  stations,  and  Rev.  J.  W.  White  and  Rev.  Joseph  Bruner  were  appointed 
to  serve  them.'  These  two  stations  were  marked  out  by  metes  an<£  bounds,  as  had 
been  invariably  done  when  new  stations  were  formed  in  Cincinnati.  This  was  done 
in  council  with  the  presiding  elder  of  Cincinnati  district,  two  or  three  days  after  con- 
ference closed,  it  having  been  forgotten  in  the  pressure  of  conference  business.  Let- 
ters were  written  by  the  presiding  bishop  to  brothers  White  and  Bruner,  defining  by 
streets,  &c.,  the  bounds  of  the  new  charges ;  and  the  city  missionary  had  Maley 
Chapel,  and  the  region  around  it,  set  apart  from  all  the  stations  as  his  special  field 
of  labour,  within  which,  and  nowhere  else,  he  was  to  exercise  pastoral  functions.  As 
the  superintendent,  however,  was  in  haste,  he  did  not  write  to  the  missionary,  but 
requested  the  presiding  elder,  brother  Morley,  to  give  him  the  information. 
'  Three  objects  were  sought  in  this  arrangement : — 

"  '  First.  As  the  city  mission  had  lost  two  principal  appointments,  it  seemed  pro- 
per to  encourage  the  missionary  by  assigning  him  the  pastoral  charge  of  this  precinct 
territory,  which  was  fast  filling  up,  and  which  must,  of  course,  receive  most  of  his 
labours. 

"  '  Second.  Ebenezer  station  bordered  on  Maley  Chapel,  and  the  population  and 
territory  were  enough  to  be  under  the  pastoral  care  of  one  man,  after  Maley  Chapel 
and  its  territory  were  taken  off. 

"  '  Third.  It  seemed  to  the  presiding  bishop  proper  that  each  city  preacher  should 
have  exclusive  pastoral  authority  within  his  own  charge ;  and,  though  no  rupture 
was  then  dreamed  of,  it  was  thought  the  exercise  of  pastoral  functions  by  the  mis- 
sionary within  the  different  charges  would  derange  and  disorder  the  work. 

"  '  Within  three  or  four  weeks  after  these  arrangements  were  made,  the  city  mis- 
sionary obtained  leave  from  the  City  Missionary  Board  to  preach  in  "Vine-street 
church,"  an  old,  deserted  building  within  the  bounds  of  Morris  Chapel  charge,  from 
one-half  to  three-fourths  of  a  mile  from  Maley  Chapel  charge,  and  in  the  heart  of  the 
city.  If  we  understand  correctly,  both  the  presiding  elder  and  the  board  deny  that 
the  missionary  received  any  authority  to  form  a  society  there,  or  do  any  other  act 
which  belonged  to  the  pastoral  oversight.  He  received  no  such  authority  from  the 
bishop. 

"  '  A  number  of  brethren,  however,  obtained  certificates,  and  presented  them  to  the 
city  missionary,  not  in  his  own  charge,  but  at  "  Vine-street,"  and  in  the  very  heart 
of  the  city  he  proceeded  to  take  possession  of  his  brother's  territory,  and  form  a  so- 
ciety. Having  increased  it  to  a  company  of  several  scores,  it  voted  to  go  South,  was 
created  "a  charge"  by  the  authority  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  Revs.  E.  W.  Sehon,  G. 
W.  Maley,  (the  missionary,)  and  S.  A.  Latta,  were  appointed  to  serve  it  as  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  Bishop  Andrew  named  it  "  VINE-STREET 
CHARGE,  a  border  society,"  &c.  In  a  short  time  this  society  purchased  a  church, 
in  the  heart  of  "Wesley  Chapel  charge,"  so  that  between  it  and  the  border,  or  the 
Ohio  River,  interposes  one  whole  charge,  the  Bethel,  which  makes  Soule  Chapel  as 
truly  an  interior  station  as  though  it  were  in  Columbus  or  Cleaveland. 

"  *  "  Andrew  Chapel,"  Cincinnati. — "  Andrew  Chapel"  was  purchased  a  few  months 


219 

since  by  the  "  Soule  Chapel"  society,  and  stands  within  the  hounds  of  Ninth-street 
charge,  having,  like  "  Soule  Chapel,"  one  whole  charge^-"  Morris  Chapel" — between 
it  and  the  border  or  river.  It  is  understood  to  have  regular  preaching,  but  whether 
placed  on  the  minutes  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  a  distinct 
charge,  we  know  not,  but  understand  that  pastoral  authority  is  exercised  there  in  the 
formation  of  classes,  receiving  members,  and  exercising  discipline. 

"  '  Statement  of  encroachment  on  the  territory  of  the  Philadelphia  Conference  by  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. — Accomac  and  Northampton  counties,  Va.,  are 
separated  from  the  Virginia  Conference  by  a  broad  bay,  (the  Chesapeake,)  in  every 
place  from  fifteen  to  thirty  miles  wide.  The  first  place  that  voted  to  unite  with  the 
Church,  South,  was  Capeville  in  Northampton,  about  seven  miles  north  of  Cape 
Charles.  The  next  place  at  which  the  vote  was  taken  was  Salem,  eight  miles  north 
of  Capeville,  which,  by  a  strong  majority,  had  previously  determined  to  stay  with  us. 
The  next  place  was  Johnson's  Chapel,  about  ten  miles  north  of  Salem,  which,  by  a 
small  majority,  preferred  the  Church,  South.  The  next  place  reported  to  have  cho- 
sen the  Church,  South,  was  Bethel,  in  Occahannock  Neck.  Here  no  vote  was  taken, 
but  some  friends  of  the  Church,  South,  went  around  to  the  houses  of  the  members,  and 
reported  that  they  had  obtained  a  majority  for  the  new  organization.  These  were  all  that 
had  declared  for  the  South  before  Mr.  Moorman  was  sent  over.  Some  time  after  his 
arrival,  Franktown,  five  or  six  miles  north  of  Johnson's,  gave  a  majority  of  one  vote 
for  the  South,  by  getting  together  members  who  had  not  attended  class  for  years. 
Pungotraque,  in  Accomac  county,  about  ten  miles  further  north,  after  giving  a  ma- 
jority to  remain  in  the  old  Church  several  times,  at  length  chose  the  new  Church  by 
a  small  majority.  And,  finally,  Craddockville,  a  few  miles  south-east  of  Pungotraque, 
in  a  neck,  gave  a  majority  for  the  Church,  South.  There  is  no  appointment  between 
any  of  the  above  and  the  Chesapeake  Bay. 

"  '  Signed,  E.  REDDING, 

B.  WAUOH, 
THOMAS  A.  MORRIS, 
L.  L.  HAMLINE, 
EDMUND  S.  JANES.'  " 

MR.  LORD, — That  is  subject  to  the  same  difficulty. 
MR.  FANCHER, — I  suppose  it  is. 

As  to  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  upon  the  so-called  Plan  of 
Separation,  I  refer  to  the  final  report  on  the  State  of  the  Church, — Proofs  No.  1, 
pp.  138-154  :— 

"  Final  Report  on  the  State  of  the  Church. 

"The  committee  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  after  a  full  and  careful  examination  of 
all  the  sources  of  information  within  their  reach,  including,  as  they  believe,  all  that 
are  essential  to  a  just  understanding  of  the  subjects  hereinafter  named,  do  recom- 
mend to  this  body  the  adoption  of  the  following  as  their  final  report : — 

"  1.  We  claim  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  exists  as  a  distinct 
and  separate  ecclesiastical  communion,  solely  by  the  act  and  deed  of  the  individual 
ministers  and  members  constituting  said  Church. 

"  In  support  of  this  position  we  set  forth  the  following  facts  : — On  the  fifth  day  of 
June,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-four,  John  Early,  W.  A.  Smith,  Thomas 
Crowder,  and  Leroy  M.  Lee,  of  the  Virginia  Conference ;  H.  B.  Bascom,  William 
Gunn,  H.  H.  Kavanaugh,  Edward  Stevenson,  B.  T.  Crouch,  and  G.  W.  Brush,  of 
the  Kentucky  Conference  ;  W.  W.  Redman,  W.  Patton,  J.  C.  Berry  man,  and  J. 
M.  Jameson,  of  the  Missouri  Conference ;  E.  F.  Sevier,  S.  Patton,  and  Thomas 
Stringfield,  of  the  Holston  Conference  ;  G.  F.  Pierce,  William  J.  Parks,  L.  Pierce, 
J.  W.  Glenn,  J.  L.  Evans,  and  A.  B.  Longstreet,  of  the  Georgia  Conference  ;  James 
Jamieson,  Peter  Doub,  and  B.  T.  Blake,  of  the  North  Carolina  Conference ;  J. 
Stamper,  of  the  Illinois  Conference  ;  G.  W.  D.  Harris,  Wm.  M'Mahan,  Thomas 
Joyner,  and  S.  S.  Moody,  of  the  Memphis  Conference ;  John  C.  Parker,  William 
P.  Radcliffe.  and  Andrew  Hunter,  of  the  Arkansas  Conference ;  William  Winans, 


220 

B.  M.  Drake,  John  Lane,  and  G.  M.  Rogers,  of  the  Mississippi  Conference ;  Little- 
ton Fowler,  of  the  Texas  Conference  ;  Jesse  Boring,  Jefferson  Hamilton,  W.  Mur- 
rah,  and  G.  Garrett,  of  the  Alabama  Conference ;  Robert  Paine,  John  B.  M'Ferrin, 
A.  L.  P.  Green,  and  T.  Maddin,  of  the  Tennessee  Conference ;  and  W.  Capers, 
Wm.  M.  Wightman,  Charles  Betts,  S.  Dunwody,  and  H.  A.  C.  Walker,  of  the 
South  Carolina  Conference,  did  present  to  the  General  Conference,  then  in  session 
in  the  city  of  New- York,  the  following  Declaration,  to  wit : — '  That  the  continued 
agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church,  the 
frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference,  and  especially  the  extra- 
judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  which  resulted,  on  Saturday  last,  in 
the  virtual  suspension  of  him  from  his  office  as  superintendent,  must  produce  a  state 
of  things  in  the  South,  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  Gene- 
ral Conference  over  these  conferences,  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry 
in  the  slaveholding  States  ;'  from  which  it  is  evident  that  they  sought  their  remedies 
for  alleged  grievances,  not  in  any  constitutional  acts,  but  in  a  violation  of  the  integ- 
rity of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  And  further,  on  the  sixth  day  of  June,  in  the  year  above-written,  the  above- 
named  gentlemen,  and  N.  C.  Berryman,  of  the  Illinois  Conference ;  I.  T.  Cooper, 
W.  Cooper,  T.  J.  Thompson  and  Henry  White,  of  the  Philadelphia  Conference  ;  E. 
W.  Sehon,  of  the  Ohio  Conference,  and  T.  Neal  and  T.  Sovereign,  of  the  New- 
Jersey  Conference,  in  addition,  presented  a  Protest  to  the  above-named  General 
Conference  against  its  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  in  which  they  assert, 
'  If  the  compromise  law  be  either  repealed,  or  allowed  to  remain  a  dead  letter,  the 
South  cannot  submit,  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  division  is  already  dated.1 
Now,  while  we  wholly  deny  the  existence  of  any  '  compromise  law,'  in  the  sense 
here  claimed,  the  indication  in  this  extract,  and,  indeed,  in  the  whole  document,  of 
a  purpose  upon  the  part  of  those  protesting  brethren  to  secure  a  division  of  the 
Church  is  too  plain  to  be  mistaken. 

"  And  further,  at  the  close  of  the  General  Conference,  on  the  eleventh  day  of 
June  and  year  above-mentioned,  fifty-one  of  the  above-named  brethren  assembled  in 
the  city  of  New- York,  and  by  formal  resolution  recommended  to  the  Southern  con- 
ferences the  appointment  of  delegates  to  a  convention,  to  commence  in  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  on  the  first  day  of  May,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty-five,  said 
delegates  to  be  instructed  on  the  points  on  which  action  is  contemplated,  conform- 
ing their  instructions,  as  far  as  possible,  to  the  opinions  and  wishes  of  the  member- 
ship within  their  several  conference  bounds.  And  the  said  brethren  issued  from 
this  unauthorized  meeting  an  address,  in  which  they  call  the  attention  of  the 
Southern  Methodists  '  to  the  proscription  and  disability  under  which  the  Southern 
portion  of  the  Church  must,  of  necessity,  labour  in  view  of  the  action  alluded  to, 
unless  some  measures  are  adopted  to  free  the  minority  of  the  South  from  the  oppres- 
sive jurisdiction  of  the  majority  in  the  North  in  this  respect  ;'  and  they  declare, 
'  that  they  regard  a  separation  at  no  distant  day  as  inevitable.'  There  is,  therefore, 
no  room  to  doubt  that  the  appointed  Louisville  Convention  was  one  of  those  leading 
'  measures '  adopted  by  these  fifty-one  brethren  for  the  express  purpose  of  freeing 
the  minority  of  tne  South  from  what  they  are  pleased  to  term  '  the  oppressive  juris- 
diction of  the  majority  in  the  North,'  and  that  the  contemplated  separation,  if  it  ac- 
tually occurred,  must  be  the  legitimate  result  of  these  premature  preliminary 
arrangements. 

"  And  further,  the  several  annual  conferences  now  included  in  the  Church,  South, 
did,  at  their  meetings,  successively,  of  their  own  will  and  accord,  vote  to  approve 
the  holding  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  for  the  purposes  proposed  by  the  members 
of  the  aforesaid  meeting  at  New-York,  appointed  delegates  to  said  convention,  and 
in  various  forms  of  expression,  directly  assumed,  as  far  as  they  were  able,  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church  evidently  contemplated  in  the  ap- 
pointment of  said  Louisville  Convention. 

"  In  the  meantime  Bishop  Soule  wrote  to  Bishop  Andrew,  requesting  him  to  re- 
sume episcopal  functions,  and,  in  the  character  and  office  of  a  bishop,  to  attend  the 
sessions  of  annual  conferences,  which  he  did,  though  said  act  was  clearly  in  contra- 
vention of '  the  expressed  will  of  the  General  Conference,  '  that  he  desist  from  the 
exercise  of  the'  episcopal  '  office  so  long  as  the  impediment'  of  slaveholding  '  re- 
mained.' By  which  acts  both  Bishop  Soule  and  Bishop  Andrew  openly  repudiated 
tb«  authority  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


221 

"  And  further,  in  the  convention  assembled  at  Louisville,  May,  one  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  forty-five,  delegates  from  the  following  conferences,  namely.  Kentucky, 
Missouri,  Holston,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  Memphis,  Arkansas,  Virginia,  Missis- 
-ppi,  Texas,  Alabama,  Georgia,  South  Carolina,  Florida,  and  Indian  Mission,  Bishops 
Soule  and  Andrew  presiding,  did  formally  resolve,  '  That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and 
necessary,  to  erect  the  annual  conferences  represented  in  this  convention  into  a  dis- 
tinct ecclesiastical  Connexion,  separate  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at  present  constituted,'  and  they  did 
'  solemnly  declare  the  jurisdiction  hitherto  exercised  over  said  annual  conferences  by 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  entirely  dissolved ;  and 
that  said  annual  conferences  shall  be,  and  they  hereby  are,  constituted  a  separate  ec- 
clesiastical Connexion.'  Accordingly  a  delegated  General  Conference  from  the 
annual  conferences  above-named,  held  at  Petersburgh,  Virginia,  May,  one  thousand 
eight  hundred  and  forty-six,  did  assume  the  powers  and  privileges  of  authorized 
representatives  of  a  separate  ecclesiastical  Connexion,  under  the  style  and  denomina- 
tion of  '  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  to  which  Church  many  of  the 
former  ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  some  evidently 
from  choice,  and  others  from  the  force  of  circumstances  which  they  felt  themselves 
unable  to  resist,  did,  formally  or  informally,  attach  themselves,  thereby  withdrawing 
themselves  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  Finally,  while  a  clearly-marked  line  of  history,  extending  from  the  first-named 
Declaration  to  the  final  action  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  shows  the  independent  action  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  said 
Church,  in  its  organization,  we  afErm  it  to  be  impossible  to  point  to  any  act  of  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  erecting  or  authorizing  said 
Church,  nor  has  the  said  General  Conference,  or  any  individual  or  any  number  of 
individuals,  any  right,  constitutional  or  otherwise,  to  extend  official  sanction  to  any 
act  tending  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church. 

"  2.  In  view  of  the  formal  Declaration  of  the  brethren  herein  first  named,  that  certain 
acts  of  the  General  Conference,  especially  the  act  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
1  must  produce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South  which  renders  a  continuance  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  that  General  Conference  over  these  conferences  inconsistent  with  the 
success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  States  ;'  fearing  that  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  would,  according  to  the  opinion  expressed 
in  the  Declaration  above  quoted,  deem  it  necessary  to  erect  themselves  into  a  sepa- 
rate and  independent  Church,  in  the  intervals  of  General  Conference  sessions,  when 
no  remedies  for  so  great  an  evil  could  be  provided  in  time,  and  desiring,  as  far  as 
practicable,  in  accordance  with  suggestions  made  by  brethren  from  the  South,  to 
adopt  measures  calculated  to  pacify  our  members  and  ministers  in  the  South  ;  the 
General  Conference,  at  its  session  in  New- York,  A.  D.  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-four,  did  propose  a  Plan  for  the  adjustment  of  relations  between  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  and  her  separating  members  and  ministers,  when  such  separa- 
tion should,  by  their  own  act  and  deed,  if  at  all,  occur.  Such  Plan,  based  entirely 
upon  the  first-named  Declaration  of  the  delegates  from  thirteen  specified  and  above- 
written  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  having  relation  to  those  conferences, 
and  to  no  others,  proposed  an  amicable  division  of  territory  between  them  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  as  follows  : — '  The  Northern  boundary'  of  the  prospective 
new  Church  to  be  fixed  at  the  Northern  extremities  of  those  '  societies,  stations,  and 
conferences,'  a  majority  of  whose  members  should,  of  their  own  free  will  and  accord, 
vote  to  adhere  to  the  said  Southern  Church ;  and  ministers,  travelling  and  local,  to 
be  allowed  to  remain  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  attach  themselves  to  the 
'  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  at  discretion.  And  said  Plan  further  proposed 
to  make  over  and  give  to  the  prospective  '  Southern  Church  so  much  of  the  capital 
and  produce  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  as  will,  with  the  notes,  books,  accounts, 
presses,'  &c.,  in  the  South,  due  and  belonging  to  the  Book  Concern  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  (the  transfer  of  which  is  provided  for  in  the  fourth  article  of  said 
Plan,)  '  bear  the  same  proportion  to  the  whole  property  of  said  Concern  that  the 
travelling  preachers  in  the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  travelling  preachers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.'  And  said  Plan  further  proposed,  that  '  the 
book  agents  at  New- York  be  directed  to  make  such  compensation  to  the  conference* 
South  for  their  dividend  from  the  Chartered  Fund  as  the  commissioners  to  be  pro- 
vided for  shall  agree  upon.' 


222 

"  But  the  whole  of  this  plan  was  expressly  or  otherwise  conditional,  as  follows, 
namely : — 

"  (1.)  That  the  asserted  '  state  of  things  in  the  South,  which  renders  a  continuance 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  General  Conference  over  these  conferences  inconsistent 
with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding  States,'  should  be  'produced'  by 
the  action  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  cases  referred  to. 

"  (2.)  That  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  annual  conferences  should, 
'  at  their  first  approaching  sessions,'  concur  in  the  vote  of,  at  least,  two-thirds  of  the 
General  Conference  so  to  alter  '  the  sixth  restrictive  article'  of  the  Discipline,  as  to 
add  to  it  the  following  words,  to  wit : — '  and  to  such  other  purposes  as  may  be 
determined  upon  by  the  votes  of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence ;'  it  being  certain,  that  should  such  vote  be  refused  by  the  annual  conferences, 
the  financial  part  of  the  Plan  could  not  go  into  effect,  which  financial  part  was  deemed 
by  both  parties  essential  to  the  Plan  ;  and  it  being  probable  that  those  who  were  op- 
posed to  the  Plan  as  a  whole,  would  vote  against  the  change  in  the  sixth  restrictive 
article. 

"(3.)  It  was  clearly  and  necessarily  implied,  that  the  friendship  and  fidelity  of  the 
parties  should  be  evinced  by  voluntarily  keeping  inviolate  the  principles  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  Plan,  pending  the  settlement  of  the  important  conditions  upon  which  its 
validity  and  binding  force  depended. 

"  In  support  of  the  above  statement  of  facts,  we  refer  expressly  to  the  aforemen- 
tioned declaration  of  the  fifty-one  Southern  brethren,  and  to  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee of  nine,  presented  to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  on  the  seventh  day  of  June,  1844. 

"  And  further,  it  will  be  observed  that  the  declaring  brethren  of  the  South  did  not 
claim  that  a  state  of  things  already  existed,  that  required  any  separation  of  the  South 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  or  that  required  the  posi- 
tive enactment  of  any  unconditional  plan  of  such  separation.  They  only  asserted 
that  (in  their  opinion,  of  course)  certain  acts  of  the  General  Conference  '  must  pro- 
duce' this  state  of  things.  And  hence  they  did  not  proceed  upon  the  supposition  that 
they  were  the  official  judges  of  the  facts,  which  might  require  the  separation  of  the 
Southern  ministers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  her  juris- 
diction. It  is  true  that  the  report  of  the  committee  of  nine,  as  it  was  first  presented, 
made  these  delegates  from  the  thirteen  conferences  South  the  judges  of  that  neces- 
sity ;  but  it  was  so  changed  as  to  leave  the  question  to  the  annual  conferences  from 
which  they  came,  thus  showing  that  the  General  Conference  would  by  no  means 
allow  this  question  of  necessity  to  be  decided  by  these  men.  From  all  of  which  it 
appears,  that  the  Plan  proposed  rested,  not  upon  the  present  or  future  existence  of 
any  state  of  excitement  in  the  South,  which  might  be  produced  by  causes  entirely 
apart  from  the  General  Conference  ;  but  upon  the  production  of  such  a  state  of  things 
as  was  predicted  by  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference  alone.  Certainly  if,  upon 
returning  to  their  charges,  our  Southern  brethren  had  found  that  no  such  '  state  of 
things'  as  they  had  supposed  existed,  and  hence  no  separation  had  occurred,  they 
would  not  assert  the  validity  of  the  proposed  Plan  ;  and  if  it  would  have  been  of  no 
binding  force,  in  the  absence  of  the  predicted  necessity,  produced  solely  by  the  ac- 
tion of  the  General  Conference,  it  follows  inevitably  that  such  necessity  so  produced 
was  an  indispensable  condition  of  the  Plan.  And,  though  this  necessity  had  actually 
been  so  produced,  and  the  Southern  ministers  and  members  had  actually  separated 
on  this  ground  alone,  in  this  case  one  of  the  conditions  of  the  Plan  would  have  been 
met,  we  nevertheless  affirm  that  in  failure  of  this  condition,  the  Plan  became  invalid, 
though  every  other  condition  of  it  had  been  literally  fulfilled. 

"  And  further,  in  proof  that  the  proposed  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article 
of  the  Discipline  was  a  fundamental  condition  of  this  Plan  as  a  whole,  we  refer  to  the 
third  resolution  of  the  report  of  the  committee  of  nine,  in  which  it  is  expressly  as- 
serted. Also  to  the  published  speech  of  Rev.  Dr.  (now  Bishop)  Paine,  from  which 
the  following  language  was  reported  : — '  This  separation  would  not  be  effected  by 
the  passage  of  those  resolutions  through  the  General  Conference.  They  must  pass 
the  annual  conferences,  beginning  at  New- York,  and  when  they  came  round  to  the 
South,  the  preachers  there  would  think,  and  deliberate,  and  feel  the  pulse  of  public 
sentiment,  and  of  the  members  of  the  Church,  and  act  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  with 
a  single  desire  for  his  glory.'  Every  word  of  which,  in  its  connexion,  would  be  en- 
tirely incompatible  with  the  idea  that  he  referred  merely  to  an  extension  of  the  power 


223 

of  the  General  Conference  in  relation  to  the  appropriation  of  funds ;  but  it  is  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  doctrine  here  asserted,  that  a  vote  on  the  change  of  that  restric- 
tive article  was  understood  to  be  a  vote  on  the  merits  of  the  Plan  as  a  whole.  So,  we 
believe,  many  of  the  members  of  the  annual  conferences  regarded  it,  and  hence  so 
many  of  them  voted  against  it  as  to  defeat  the  measure.  Indeed,  so  essential  to  the 
Plan  did  our  Southern  brethren  consider  this  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article, 
that  they  never  have,  in  any  way,  signified  their  willingness  to  accept  of  the  Plan 
without  it.  With  this  agrees  perfectly  the  Address  of  the  above-named  fifty-one 
brethren,  from  their  meeting  in  New- York,  held  the  llth  day  of  June,  1844,  in  which 
they  hold  the  following  language  : — '  It  affords  us  pleasure  to  state  that  there,  were 
those  found  among  the  majority  who  met  this  proposition  (the  Plan,  not  '  of  formal 
and  specific  separations,'  but  to  provide  for  the  results  of  separation,  should  it  occur 
under  the  necessity  above  explained)  with  every  manifestation  of  justice  and  liberal- 
ity. And  should  a  similar  spirit  be  exhibited  by  the  annual  conferences  in  the  North, 
when  submitted  to  them,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  itself,  there  will  remain  no  legal 
impediment  to  its  peaceful  consummation.' 

"  But  '  if  a  similar  spirit  should  '  not  '  be  exhibited  by  the  annual  conferences  in 
the  North,  when  submitted  to  them,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  itself;'  then,  of 
course,  by  the  showing  of  these  fifty-one  Southern  brethren,  '  there  will  remain  a 
legal  impediment  to  its  peaceful  consummation  '  as  a  Plan.  It  is  true  that  the  ques- 
tion of  a  ratification  of  the  Plan  was  not  directly,  and  in  so  many  words,  submitted  to 
the  annual  conferences  ;  but  it  is  evident,  that  in  the  honest  opinion  of  these  South- 
ern brethren,  it  was  in  effect  so  submitted.  Nor  could  it  by  possibility  have  been 
otherwise,  from  the  language  of  the  Plan,  which  submits  an  amendment  of  the  Dis- 
cipline absolutely  essential  to  the  Plan  as  a  whole,  the  preachers  being  obliged  to 
vote  upon  said  amendment  in  view  of  its  bearing  upon  the  whole  Plan  ;  and  the 
failure  of  said  amendment  rendering  the  Plan  as  a  whole  entirely  unsatisfactory  to 
the  South  :  therefore,  in  the  event  of  a  failure  of  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all 
the  annual  conferences — the  Southern  conferences  included — 'at  their  first  approach- 
ing sessions,'  to  vote  for  the  change  proposed  in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  said 
Plan  would  be,  as  a  whole,  and  hence  of  necessity  in  its  details,  rendered  null  and 
void. 

"  And  further,  we  claim  that  the  position,  that  a  sacred,  though  voluntary  observ- 
ance of  the  requirements  of  the  proposed  Plan  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  the  brethren  South,  who  should  separate  from  her,  was  a  fundamental  condition 
of  the  Plan,  is  a  clear  and  undeniable  inference  from  the  whole  design  and  scope  of 
said  Plan.  It  was,  as  its  friends  openly  claimed,  a  peace  measure.  It  was  designed 
to  prevent  aggressions  from  either  party,  and  thus  to  prevent  unchristian  feelings  and 
angry  collisions  between  those  who  claim  to  be  brethren.  If,  therefore,  this  great  ob- 
ject, lying  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  scheme,  and  in  the  light  of  which  alone  any 
part  of  it  has  the  least  significancy,  were  disregarded  or  trampled  under  foot  by  either 
party,  the  other,  as  a  whole,  and  every  individual  of  them,  would  be  entirely  absolved 
from  all  obligations  to  it  whatsoever.  If,  therefore,  this  shall  be  found  to  have  been 
done,  then,  though  all  other  conditions  of  the  Plan  were  certainly  fulfilled,  it  will  be 
to  all  intents  and  purposes  null  and  void. 

"  Finally,  it  has  fully  appeared,  that  to  meet,  in  what  was  then  supposed  to  be  the 
best  manner  possible,  the  disastrous  results  of  a  violent  dismemberment  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  should  it  occur,  and  provide  for  an  amicable  adjustment 
of  all  relations  between  the  two  parties,  this  provisional  Plan  was  adopted  by  the 
General  Conference  at  its  session,  in  the  year  1844 — that  to  provide  for,  or  sanction 
a  division  of  said  Church  was  therefore  no  part  of  the  intentions  of  said  General  Con- 
erence.  And  that  it  rested  upon  three  distinct  and  fundamental  conditions,  the 
failure  of  either  of  which  must  be  fatal  to  its  validity  and  binding  force.  And  though, 
in  the  light  of  four  years'  history,  we  are  fully  convinced  that  the  act  implied  a  de- 
gree of  faith  in  men  not  justified  by  the  facts,  and  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the 
case  it  was  not  adapted  to  secure  its  intended  results,  we  cannot  for  a  moment 
question  the  Christian  liberality  in  which  it  had  its  origin. 

"  3.  It  is  evident  to  us,  that  the  acts  of  the  General  Conference  complained  of,  did 
not  produce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South,  which  rendered  a  continuance  of  the  juris- 
diction of  said  Conference  '  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slave- 
holding  States ;'  three- fourths  of  the  members  of  all  the  annual  conferences  did 
not  concur  in  the  vote  to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  and  thus  sanction  the  Plan, 


224 

for  the  accommodation  of  which  said  alteration  was  asked  ;  and  the  conditions  and 
requirements  of  said  Plan  have  been  violated  :  and  hence  said  Plan  is  [and,  from  the 
first  failure  of  the  conditions  of  said  Plan,  or  either  of  them,  has  been]  null  and  void. 

"  In  support  of  which  we  offer  the  following  facts  : — 

"After  the  adoption  of  the  proposition  fora  peace  measure,  and  providing  for  its 
final  ratification  and  use,  in  case  the  predicted  separation  should  occur,  it  would,  as 
we  humbly  conceive,  have  been  in  perfect  conformity  to  said  peaceful  arrangement 
for  the  Southern  delegates  to  have  used  their  utmost  endeavours,  as  some  of  them 
assured  us  they  would  do,  to  quiet  the  public  mind  in  the  South ;  and  entering  in- 
stantly upon  the  regular  work,  to  have  met  every  act  of  resentment,  and  every  ap- 
pearance of  insubordination  to  the  authorities  of  the  Church,  with  a  calm,  dignified, 
and  determined  resistance — to  have  defended  the  General  Conference,  so  far  as  they 
could  conscientiously  do  so,  and  themselves  to  the  utmost ;  for  doing  which  their 
motions,  speeches,  votes,  Declaration,  and  Protest,  furnished  ample  materials.  To 
have  adopted  this  course  would,  we  believe,  have  been  doing  no  more  than  to  meet 
the  just  expectations  excited  by  their  peaceful  protestations  upon  the  Conference 
floor,  and  elsewhere,  both  before  and  after  the  vote  upon  the  proposed  pacific  Plan, 
and  their  avowed  attachment  to  the  Church  of  their  choice,  in  its  uninterrupted  in- 
tegrity. But  if  active  peace  measures  had  been  either  incompatible  with  their  private 
opinions  of  self-respect,  or  inconvenient  under  their  peculiar  circumstances,  they,  as 
we  verily  believe,  might  have  avoided  all  acts  preparatory  to  the  excitement  of  the 
public  mind,  and  leading  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  division  of  the  Church  ;  6y 
doing  which,  they  would  have  given  to  the  world  an  example  of  moderation  under 
circumstances  confessedly  difficult  and  trying,  worthy  of  all  commendation,  and  af- 
forded an  opportunity  for  a  free,  spontaneous,  and,  in  due  time,  decisive  verdict  of 
Southern  Methodists,  upon  the  question  whether  the  action  of  the  General  Confe- 
rence had,  and  '  must  necessarily  '  have  '  produced  a  state  of  things  in  the  South, 
which  rendered  a  continuance  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  General  Conference  over 
these  conferences  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the  ministry  in  the  slaveholding 
States.'  This,  we  claim  and  assert,  the' Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  a  right  to 
exact  of  them,  in  order  to  a  just  estimate  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  con- 
scientious and  legitimate  action  of  her  highest  judicatory  had  placed  her  in  relation 
to  the  Southern  ministers  and  membership.  But,  instead  of  this,  these  fifty-one 
brethren,  by  character  and  position  highest  in  rank  and  influence  among  Southern 
Methodists,  did,  at  a  meeting  called  and  had  before  leaving  the  seat  of  the  General 
Conference,  only  ten  days  after  the  principal  action,  and  five  days  after  the  final 
action,  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  virtually  appoint  a  convention,  to  be  held  in 
Louisville,  Kentucky,  to  commence  on  the  first  of  May,  one  thousand  eight  hundred 
and  forty-five,  to  take  into  consideration  the  question  of  a  division  of  the  Church ; 
and  thus  superinduce  the  very  excitement  which  they  should  have  deprecated,  and 
attempted  by  every  laudable  means  in  their  power  to  allay.  Indeed,  it  is  evident,  as 
it  should  have  been  foreseen,  that  the  appointment  of  that  convention  alone  was,  un- 
der the  circumstances,  decisive  of  the  very  question  which  should  have  been  left  to 
the  decision  of  time  under  the  action  of  all  the  conservative  elements  available  in  the 
case. 

"  Moreover,  from  the  said  meeting  in  New- York,  which,  if  it  occurred  at  all,  should 
have  given  utterance  only  to  counsels  peaceful  in  their  nature  and  tendency,  and 
strictly  loyal  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  an  address  was  issued,  '  To  the 
Ministers  and  Members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  slaveholding  States 
and  Territories,'  in  which  these  fifty-one  brethren  say,  that  the  'various  action  of  the 
majority  of  the  General  Conference,  at  its  recent  session,  on  the  subject  of  slavery 
and  abolition,  has  been  such  as  to  render  it  necessary,  in  the  judgment  of  those  ad- 
dressing you,  to  call  attention  to  the  proscription  and  disability  under  which  the 
Southern  portion  of  the  Church  must  of  necessity  labour  in  view  of  the  action  alluded 
to,  unless  some,  measures  are  adopted  to  free  the  minority  of  the  South  from  the 
oppressive  jurisdiction  of  the  majority  in  the  North  in  this  respect.  The  proceedings 
of  the  majority,  in  several  cases  involving  the  question  of  slavery,  have  been  such  as 
indicate  most  conclusively  that  the  legislative,  judicial,  and  administrative  action,  of 
the  General  Conference,  as  now  organized,  will  always  be  extremely  hurtfu.l,  if  not 
finally  ruinous,  to  the  interests  of  the  Southern  portion  of  the  Church,  and  must  ne- 
cessarily produce  a  state  of  conviction  and  feeling  in  the  slaveholding  States  entirely 
inconsistent  with  either  the  peace  or  prosperity  of  the  Church.  The  opinions  and 


225 

purposes  of  the  Church  in  the  North  on  the  subject  of  slavery  are  in  direct  conflict 
with  those  of  the  South  ;  and  unless  the  South  will  submit  to  the  dictation  and  in- 
terference of  the  North,  greatly  beyond  what  the  existing  law  of  the  Church  on 
slavery  and  abolition  authorizes,  there  is  no  hope  of.  anything, like  union  or  har- 
mony.' 

"  Further  similar  quotations  might  be  made  from  this  Address,  but  we  deem  it 
unnecessary.  We  submit  it  to  a  candid  world,  whether  language  less  respectful  to 
•.he  Church  of  which  they  were  members,  or  more  inflammatory  to  Southern  minds 
in  the  midst  of  slavery,  could  well  be  used.  Surely  there  is  no  room  for  surprise, 
that  the  most  excited  meetings  soon  occurred  in  all  parts  of  the  South,  and  the  most 
indignant  resolutions  were  passed,  leading  to  a  degree  of  public  agitation,  alarming 
to  the  peace  of  the  Church  and  the  nation. 

"  But  one  more  quotation  shall  be  made,  to  show  that  these  fifty-one  brethren  did 
not  hesitate,  formally,  to  take  the  initiative  in  the  work  of  deciding  the  question 
which  they  had  raised,  and  thus  actually,  as  they  had  already  done  virtually,  give 
the  full  weight  of  their  influence  to  counteract  the  pacific  measures  which  they  had 
asked  at  our  hands,  and  for  which  they  had  just  voted  :  '  As  the  undersigned  have 
had  opportunity  and  advantages,  which  those  at  a  distance  could  not  possess,  to 
form  a  correct  judgment  in  the  premises,  and  it  may  be  expected  of  them  that  they 
express  their  views  fully  on  the  subject,  they  do  not  hesitale  to  say,  that  they  regard 
a  separation  at  no  distant  day  as  inevitable.'  After  this  declaration,  of  what  avail 
was  it  to  '  beseech  their  brethren  of  the  ministry  and  membership  in  the  slaveholding 
States  to  examine  this  matter  carefully,  and  try  to  reach  the  conclusion  most  proper 
under  the  circumstances'!'  or  'disposed,  however,  to  defer  to  the  judgment  of  the 
Church,  we  leave  this  subject  with  you  !'  The  result  was  what  must  have  been  ex- 
pected. The  voice  of  remonstrance,  though  sincere  and  beseeching,  against  the 
revolutionary  measures  urged  on  by  such  powerful  talents  and  influence,  was  too 
feeble  to  be  heard  till  the  confusion  was  over,  and  it  was  too  late.  The  act  of  sepa- 
ration was  consummated,  as  we  have  already  seen,  and  many  thousands  hurried  out 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  into  the  new  organization,  with  scarcely  an  oppor- 
tunity to  know  what  it  was  for. 

"  We  thus  see  clearly  that  the  way  for  separation  was  prepared,  not  by  a  state  of 
things  in  the  South  '  produced '  by  the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  but  by  revo- 
lutionary measures  adopted  by  the  Southern  delegates  at  the  very  seat,  and  nearly 
at  the  time,  of  our  General  Conference  session.  The  success  of  the  ministry  could 
not  have  been  hindered  by  our  action  ;  for  not  only  was  there  no  instance  of  the  kind 
alleged,  but  there  was  a  want  of  time  to  produce  any  such  result,  before  these  fifty- 
one  brethren,  by  taking  the  lead  of  the  Southern  mind,  anticipated  their  decision. 
In  view  of  the  whole  of  which  we  claim  and  affirm,  that  the  Southern  organization 
was  consummated  in  direct  contravention  of  the  Plan  proposed  to  meet  the  results  of 
separation,  thus  reducing  it  to  a  nullity,  by  the  violation  of  its  first  great  and  funda- 
mental condition.  And  we  moreover  claim  and  affirm,  that  the  very  acts  of  calling 
the  convention  and  issuing  the  said  Address,  by  which  Southern  opinion  was  fore- 
stalled, was  an  abandonment  of  the  Plan  proposed  by  the  General  Conference,  and 
hence,  for  the  reason  above  alleged,  the  Plan  has  been  of  no  real  force  since  the  date 
of  said  call  and  Address — to  wit,  the  llth  day  of  June,  1844. 

"  And  further,  it  appears  from  official  returns  made  from  all  the  annual  conferences 
voting  thereon,  including  those  now  embraced  in  the  Church,  South,  obtained  since 
this  session  commenced,  that  the  required  three- fourths'  majority  of  the  members  of 
the  said  annual  conferences  has  not  been  given,  and  hence,  and  for  this  reason,  as 
shown  above,  the  Plan  is  null  and  void. 

"  And  further,  from  information  officially  given  by  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  answer  to  a  call  upon  them  by  the  General  Conference  for  a  state- 
ment of  the  facts  in  the  premises,  it  appears  that  in  numerous  instances  the  Plan  pro- 
posed in  the  event  of  a  separation  has  been  openly  violated  by  the  Southern  Church, 
and  hence  that  the  peace  upon  the  border  and  elsewhere,  which  it  was  designed  to 
promote,  has  not  been  secured.  The  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  have  claimed  a  movable  line,  thus  transferring,  from  one  place  to  another,  the 
scenes  of  strife  and  confusion  as  fast  as  society  majorities  could  be  obtained,  which 
we  regard  and  affirm  to  be  in  direct  contravention  of  the  most  obvious  principles  c? 
the  said  provisional  Plan.  And  it  is  in  evidence  before  us,  that  in  numerous  instance  \ 
the  sense  of  members  on  the  proposed  border  has  been  taken  by  Southern  preach- 

15 


226 

ors,  privately,  and  in  various  other  illegal  and  inconvenient  ways,  and  hence  that  so- 
cieties have  been  reported  and  claimed  fox  the  South,  which,  by  suitable  tests,  would 
have  given  large  majorities  in  favour  of  adhering  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
And  in  numerous  instances  influence  has  been  applied,  and  often  varied,  and  obsti- 
nately persevered  in,  to  secure  a  decision  in  favour  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  and  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  many  of  our  people.  And  also,  in 
some  instances,  houses  of  worship,  built  at  the  expense,  in  whole  or  in  part,  of  mem 
bers  adhering  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  been  taken  from  them  without 
their  consent,  and  without  compensation,  and  they  have  been  discommoded  by  vex- 
atious lawsuits,  costs,  and  in  various  other  ways,  by  preachers  and  members  attached 
to  the  Church,  South,  all  of  which  we  claim  and  affirm  is  in  direct  violation  of  the 
most  sacred  objects  and  conditions  of  the  said  proposed  Plan,  showing  that  it  has 
long  since,  in  this  way  also,  been  rendered  a  nullity  by  our  brethren  of  the  South, 
and  this,  notwithstanding  tho  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  waving 
all  conclusions  which  this  General  Conference  were  entitled  to  draw  from  the  nu- 
merous ascertained  infractions  of  the  proposed  Plan,  resolved,  'as  far  as  their 
administration  was  concerned,'  to  adhere  to  it  strictly,  which,  for  the  sake  of  the 
magnanimous  Christian  example  it  exhibits,  and  in  view  of  the  right  of  the  General 
Conference  alone  to  assert  the  facts  of  the  infraction  and  consequent  destruction  of 
the  Plan,  we  are  happy  to  find  they  have  scrupulously  done. 

"  Finally,  having  thus  found,  upon  clear  and  incontestable  evidence,  that  the  three 
fundamental  conditions  of  said  proposed  Plan  have  severally  failed,  and  the  failure 
of  either  of  them  separately  being  sufficient  to  render  it  null  and  void,  and  having 
found  the  practical  workings  of  said  Plan  incompatible  with  certain  great  constitu- 
tional principles  elsewhere  asserted,  we  have  found  and  declared  the  whole  and  every 
part  of  said  provisional  Plan  to  be  null  and  void. 

"  4.  In  view  of  the  above-named  principles  and  facts,  [as  well  as  the  constitu- 
tional rights  already  referred  to,]  we  regard  those  who  have,  by  their  own  act  and 
deed,  become  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  as  having  with- 
drawn from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  whereas  those  who  are  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  good  and  regular  standing,  cannot  be  deprived 
of  such  membership  without  due  form  of  trial,  all  those  members  who  have  not  at- 
tached themselves  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  are  and  have  been 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  as  such  they  are  entitled  to  its  care 
and  privileges,  as  provided  for  in  another  report  of  this  committee.  Respectfully 
submitted.  GEORGE  PECK,  Chairman." 

I  wish  to  refer  to  the  manuscript  journal  of  the  General  Conference  of  1808,  to 
read  a  letter  from  Ezekiel  Cooper,  in  relation  to  the  Book  Concern.  I  refer  to  it 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  this  fund  has  accumulated. 

MR.  LORD, — That  ought  to  have  been  read  before  the  argument  commenced. 
You  reserved  no  right  to  read  it,  and  permitted  me  to  sum  up  without  its  being  read. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — It  can  be  read  now  if  it  is  within  the  stipulation. 

MR.  LORD, — It  is  within  the  stipulation ;  but  it  ought  to  have  been  read  before 
my  argument,  unless  it  was  agreed  to  reserve  it. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — I  understood  the  counsel  to  allow  the  postponement  of  the  read- 
ing of  everything  on  the  part  of  the  defence. 

MR.  LORD, — No  matter. 

MR.  FANCHER, — This  is  a  letter  from  Ezekiel  Cooper,  book  agent,  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1808  ;  and  is  entered  on  the  journals  of  that  Conference,  under  date 
May  24th,  1808  :— 

15* 


. 

227 

"  Moved  by  Thomas  Ware,  and  seconded  by  "Wm.  Mills,  that  our  present  book 
agents  be  requested  to  inform  the  Conference,  if  they  will  continue  to  conduct  the 
Concern,  and  on  what  terms. 

"  Brother  Ezekiel  Cooper  gave  in  his  resignation  as  book  agent,  viz.  : — 

"  I,  Ezekiel  Cooper,  editor  and  general  book-steward,  with  affectionate  and  grate- 
ful emotions  of  heart,  do  hereby  respectfully  acknowledge  to  my  brethren  composing 
the  General  Conference,  that  the  trust  and  confidence  which  they  have  reposed  in 
me,  as  their  editor  and  general  book-steward,  in  the  superintendence  of  their  Book 
Concern,  has  and  does  most  seriously  and  deeply  affect  my  sensibility,  so  as  to  ex- 
cite thankfulness  to  my  brethren,  and  a  grateful  reverence  and  humiliation  before 
God,  that  I  have  been  accounted  capable  and  qualified  to  fill  the  station,  and  have 
been  considered  as  worthy  of  trust  and  confidence  in  so  important  and  interesting  a 
department ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  inexpressible  delight,  that  I  can  ingenuously  declare 
to  you,  that  I  have,  with  conscious  rectitude,  served  the  interests  of  the  Connexion 
with  persevering  integrity  and  fidelity,  to  the  best  of  my  ability  ;  and  as  our  report 
to  you  will  show,  from  a  view  of  the  stock  account  now  rendered,  I  have  served 
your  interests  successfully.  And  may  I  flatter  myself  jhat  I  have  served  you  with 
acceptance,  so  far  as  to  meet  the  testimony  of  your  approbation  ;  than  which,  I  do 
not  know  any  temporary  consideration  that  is  capable  of  giving  me  a  greater  satis- 
faction and  gratification. 

"  When  I  engaged  in  the  Concern,  in  the  spring  of  1799,  the  whole  amount  of  the 
clear  capital  stock,  including  debts  and  all  manner  of  property,  was  not  worth  more 
than  about  $4,000  ;  and  I  had  not  a  single  dollar  of  cash  in  hand,  belonging  to  the 
Connexion,  to  carry  on  the  work,  or  to  procure  materials,  or  to  pay  a  single  demand 
against  the  Concern,  which  at  that  time  was  near  $3,000  in  debt.  Under  these 
circumstances,  and  thus  situated,  I  engaged  in  the  business  with  reluctance,  fear, 
and  trembling.  I  maintained  and  established  the  Concern  by  my  own  personal 
responsibility  for  contracts  made,  and  the  credit  that  I  had  in  the  confidence  of  those 
for  whom  I  did  business.  Thus,  with  cautious  steps,  and  prudent  forethought,  and 
calculations  in  business,  I  had  to  struggle  and  go  on  by  night  and  day  ;  and  I  had  in 
certain  cases  to  advance  my  own  cash  to  meet  some  of  the  demands  against  the 
Concern.  In  the  course  of  the  first  year,  I  got  the  business  tolerably  under  way,  and 
by  intense  application  and  great  fatigue  got  released  from  some  embarrassments  and 
perplexities,  and  the  business  appeared  in  a  state  of  liberal  prosperity.  At  the 
General  Conference  in  1804,  the  Concern  had  so  far  prospered  that  I  could  show  a 
a  capital  of  about  $27,000,  which  was  clearing  for  the  Connexion  about  $23,000  in 
five  years,  from  a  capital  of  about  $4,000,  which  was  when  I  received  it  in  a  precarious 
and  scattered  situation.  During  which  time  of  five  years  I  had  no  help  allowed  me  by 
the  Connexion,  further  than  a  small  consideration  of  $330  and  my  board  per  year. 
Four  years  ago,  in  1804,  the  General  Conference  appointed  Brother  John  Wilson  to 
assist  in  the  business,  since  which  time  we  have  progressed  upon  the  capital  of  about 
$45,000,  according  to  the  report  on  your  table.  So  that  since  the  time  I  first  en- 
gaged in  the  business,  in  1799,  till  this  time,  being  nine  years,  the  capital  stock  has 
increased  about  eleven-fold,  which  is  more  than  one  hundred  per  cent,  per  annum, 
or  about  eleven  hundred  per  cent,  in  nine  years  upon  the  original  capital  stock  of 
about  $4.000,  besides  the  various  appropriations  to  the  conferences  and  other  pur- 
poses, as  our  ledger  and  day-book  will  show  for. 

"  And  now,  dear  brethren,  wishing  all  success  to  the  Connexion,  and  to  the  Book 
Concern,  I  hereby  give  you  notice,  that  it  is  my  wish  and  purpose  to  be  released, 
from  the  agency  in  the  Book  Concern,  and  to  retire  from  the  responsibility  and  per- 
plexities of  the  business.  Therefore,  I  decline  being  considered  as  a  candidate  for 
the  editor  or  stewardship,  wishing  you  may  never  have  an  agent  to  do  you  less 
service,  nor"  to  serve  you  with  less  acceptance  than  I  have  done.  . 

"  With  great  consideration,  I  am,  dear  brethren,  in  sentiments  of  good-will,  and 
ministerial  affection,  and  Christian  love,  yours  respectfully, 

"  BALTIMORE,  May  24th,  1808.  EZEKIEL  COOPER. 

"  To  the  General  Conference  now  sitting." 

MR.  JOHNSON, — Does  the  gentleman  read  that  to  show  that  the  capital  swelled 
from  $1,000  to  $45,000? 


228 
MR.  FANCHEK, — The  object  is  to  show  how  the  capital  accrued. 

MR.  JOHNSON, — To  show  that  there  were  no  donations,  but  that  the  accumulation 
was  the  result  of  the  proceeds  of  the  books  1 

MR.  FANCHER, — Yes,  sir ;  I  wish  to  make  references  in  this  connexion,  to  show 
that  from  the  first  the  travelling  preachers,  who  acted  as  agents,  were  compensated 
by  a  discount  to  them  as  wholesale  purchasers, — generally,  I  believe,  of  one-third.  I 
refer  to  the  report  finally  adopted  in  the  Canada  case,  (Proofs,  No.  1,  page  49,)  to 
show  that  the  General  Conference  exercised  a  right  to  vary  the  discount. 

MR.  JOHNSON, — What  was  the  discount  then  1 

MR.  FANCHER, — I  do  not  know  what  it  was  then  ;  but  it  was  generally  about  33J 
per  cent.  That  report,  on  p.  49,  says,  that 

"  The  General  Conference  have  ever  claimed  and  exercised  the  right  to  regulate 
the  discount  at  which  our  books  may  be  sold  to  wholesale  purchasers." 

I  refer  also  to  the  journals  of  the  Conference  of  1840,  (pp.  116,  117,)  when  the 
following  resolution  was  adopted  : — 

"  5.  Resolved,  That  we  allow  on  all  credit  sales  a  discount  of  twenty-five  percent., 
the  credit  to  extend  to  the  conference  ensuing,  when,  if  not  paid,  to  bear  interest 
from  that  date  ;  and  a  discount  of  thirty-three  and  one-third  per  cent,  when  the  cash 
accompanies  the  order ;  provided,  that  whenever  the  books  are  longer  than  one 
month  in  arriving  at  the  place  of  destination,  after  the  reception  of  the  cash  by  the 
agents,  then  the  purchaser  shall  be  entitled  to  receive  interest  on  the  amount  paid, 
for  the  whole  time  from  the  reception  of  the  money  until  the  books  are  received, 
at  the  same  rate  of  interest  as  is  charged  by  the  agents ;  provided,  also,  such  pay- 
ments are  made  in  funds  which  are  at  par  at  the  agency." 

That  rule  existed  until  1848  ;  then,  as  will  be  seen  on  reference  to  the  journal  of 
that  Conference,  (pp.  113,  114,)  this  resolution  was  adopted: — 

"  Resolved,  That  a  deduction  of  fifteen  per  cent,  on  an  average,  be  made  on  the 
retail  prices  of  the  books  of  the  General  Catalogue  ;  and  that  the  discount  to  preach- 
ers on  the  books  (with  the  exception  of  Bibles  and  Testaments)  be,  for  cash  pur- 
chases, thirty  per  cent. ;  on  credit,  twenty  per  cent." 

I  next  refer,  in  relation  to  a  point  made  by  the  counsel  in  opening,  to  the  Disci- 
pline of  1840,  (page  67,)  to  show  that  a  travelling  preacher  may  be  located  without 
his  consent. 

"  Quest.  4.  What  shall  be  done  with  a  member  of  an  annual  conference  who 
conducts  himself  in  a  manner  which  renders  him  unacceptable  to  the  people  as  a 
travelling  preacher? 

"  Ans.  When  any  member  of  an  annual  conference  shall  be  charged  with  having 
so  conducted  himself  as  to  render  him  unacceptable  to  the  people  as  a  traveling 
preacher,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  conference  to  which  he  belongs  to  investigate 
the  case  ;  and  if  it  appear  that  the  complaint  is  well-founded,  and  he  do  not  give  the 
conference  satisfaction  that  he  will  amend,  or  voluntarily  retire,  they  may  locate  him 
without  his  consent." 

I  wish  now  to  refer  to  the  fact,  which  is  not  in  evidence,  that  the  Southern  confer- 
ences, the  Southern  preachers,  receive  books  from  the  Book  Concern,  and  have  re- 
ceived them  since  1844,  under  precisely  the  same  arrangement  that  was  made  with 
the  Canada  Conference. 

MR.  LORD, — Do  you  mean  the  Southern  organization,  or  individual  Southern 
preachers  1 

MB.  FANCHER, — Individual  preachers. 


229 


MR.  LORD, — If  you  will  .draw  up  a  statement  of  the  fact  as  you  wish  it  admitted,  I 
will  sign  it  with  you ;  though  I  think  it  ought  to  have  been  notified  to  us  before. 

MR.  FANCHER, — I  wish  to  refer  to  another  fact  not  in  evidence — this  suit  was 
commenced  on  the  15th  of  June,  1849. 

In  connexion  with  the  reference  I  have  already  made  to  the  votes  of  the  annual 
conferences  on  the  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  I  ask  the  Court  to  refer  to 
Proofs,  No.  1,  page  136,  the  proceedings  of  May  18,  1848,  being  a  statement  of  the 
report  of  the  committee  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  as  to  the  votes  on  this  question. 

MR.  LORD, — That  was  read  by  Mr.  Choate. 

MR.  FANCHER, — Very  well. 

I  beg  to  state  to  the  Court  that,  not  having  had  an  opportunity  of  conferring  with 
Mr.  Choate,  and  not  having  seen  his  brief,  I  cannot  say  that  these  are  all  the  refer- 
ences we  shall  make ;  but  these  are  all  of  which  I  have  a  note.  I  reserve  the  right 
to  make  other  references  whenever  Mr.  Choate  may  be  able  to  attend. 

The  Court  then  adjourned. 

'•   .  •'  * 
FIFTH  DAY.— FRIDAY,  May  23,  1851. 

MR.  EWING, — If  the  Court  please — Mr'.  Choate,  who,  by  our  arrangement,  was 
to  proceed  this  morning  with  the  argument,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  ill.  His  physician 
says  he  will  be  able  to  proceed  on  Monday.  We  would  ask,  as  a  favour  of  your 
Honours,  that  the  case  be  postponed  until  then. 

MR.  WOOD, — Mr.  Choate  has  prepared  to  open  this  case  upon  the  evidence;  and, 
as  your  Honours  are  aware,  it  is  a  very  different  preparation  for  the  one  who  is  to 
open  and  the  one  who  is  to  follow,  and  it  would  derange  our  whole  proceedings  if 
we  were  to  change  the  order  of  speaking. 

MR.  JOHNSON, — The  complainants  have  no  objection  to  the  postponement.  The 
clients  whom  I  represent,  and  I  myself,  will  suffer  some  inconvenience  from  it,  but 
that  is  nothing  compared  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  granting  this  indulgence  to  Mr/ 
Choate.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  counsel  associated  with  him  are  not  prepared  to  take 
his  place  in  the  argument.  It  will  be  perfectly  satisfactory  to  us  if  your  Honours 
yield  to  the  application. 

MR.  WOOD, — If  the  Court  will  allow  this  privilege,  we  shall  arrange  to  go  on  with 
the  case  on  Monday,  whether  Mr.  Choate  be  able  to  attend  or  not. 

JUDGE  NELSON, — That  must  be  understood ;  the  case  must  go  on  on  Monday. 
In  consequence  of  the  illness  of  Mr.  Choate,  who  is  the  counsel  selected  to  open  the 
argument  on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  postpone  the  argu- 
ment until  Monday  morning.  I  was  informed  yesterday  afternoon  that  Mr.  Choate 
was  quite  unwell,  was  under  the  charge  of  a  physician,  and  it  was  doubtful  whether 
he  would  be  able  to  come  to  Court  this  morning.  It  seems  this  morning  that  he  is 
not  as  well  as  he  was  yesterday.  He  is  not  able  at  present  to  come  to  Court  to  open 
the  argument  on  the  part  of  the  defendants.  Of  course,  from  the  necessity  of  the 
case,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  postpone  the  argument,  however  inconvenient  it  may  be 
to  the  business  of  the  Court,  or  to  the  counsel  concerned.  The  argument  of  the  case 
therefore  will  be  postponed  until  Monday  morning  at  ten  o'clock.  Then  it  must  go 
on,  without  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  counsel. 

The  Court  was  then  adjourned  to  Monday. 


230 

SIXTH  DAY.— MONDAY,  MAY  26,  1851. 
MR.  FAXCHER  handed  to  the  Court  the  Points  of  the  Defendants,  as  follows  : — 

I.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  a  religious  society,  established  for  the  pro- 
motion and  spread  of  Christianity,  organized  in  1784  as  an  episcopal  Church,  inde- 
pendent of  the  English  episcopacy  ;  and  prior  to  the  secession  hereinafter  mentioned, 
extended  through  every  part  of  the  United  States. 

II.  Said  religious  society  or  institution  existed  under  and  subject  to  the  law  of 
public  or  charitable  uses. 

III.  The  government  and  discipline  of  the  society  prior  to  1808  was  under  the 
jurisdiction  and  control  of  district  or  annual  conferences,  held  in  each  of  the  several 
districts  into  which  the  territories  within  their  limits  were  divided — composed  of  the 
clergymen  within  their  respective  districts  :  and  from  the  proceedings  of  those  bodies 
generally  an  appeal  lay  to  a  general  convention,  consisting  of  the  ministers  compris- 
ing the  annual  conferences;  and  which  convention  exercised  original  as  well  as 
appellate  powers. 

IV.  Property  consisting  of  real  and  personal  estate,  commonly  known  and  distin- 
guished as  the  Book  Concern,  has  been,  and  still  is,  held  by  trustees,  subject  to  the 
management  of  said  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
which  is  subject  to  the  use  following,  viz. :  'to  be  appropriated  "  for  the  benefit  of  the 
travelling,  supernumerary,  and  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows,  and  children." 

V.  The  said  Book  Concern  was  originally  commenced  by  the  travelling  preachers, 
and  it  has  been  held,  more  especially  since  1 808,  in  connexion  with,  and  in  subordi- 
nation to,  the  judicatories  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  are  the  managers 
of  the  charity. 

VI.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  through  its  annual  conferences,  as  such 
managers,  cannot  be  deprived  of  their  power  and  control  over  said  funds,  unless  guilty 
of  a  breach  of  duty,  established  by  the  decree  of  a  court  of  equity. 

VII.  The  trustees  are  accountable  for  these  funds  and  proceeds  thereof  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  its  judicatories,  and  are  bound  to  pay  over  said  in- 
come, in  fulfilment  of  the  trust  under  their  management  and  direction,  to  the  benefi- 
ciaries. 

VIII.  The  beneficiaries — to  wit,  the  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  superannuated 
preachers  belonging  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  their  families — have  no 
estate  in,  or  right  to,  the  said  funds,  or  the  income  thereof,  otherwise  than  as  the 
same  are  given  out  to  them  from  time  to  time  in  the  administration  of  the  charity. 

IX.  Said  trustees  are  not  under  the  control  or  direction  of  the  persons  who  may 
have  contributed  to  the  charity,  and  who  thereby  irrevocably  parted  with  the  same. 

X.  The  members  in  the  Southern  annual  conferences  or  districts,  who  left  the 
General  Conference  in  1844,  and  subsequently  formed  a  new  General  Conference, 
and  a  separate  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  under  the  name  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  seceded  and  separated  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  are 
no  longer  in  connexion  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  which  is  now  composed 
of  that  portion  of  the  former  members  who  remained  in  it,  and  arc  identified  with  it. 

1 .  The  General  Conference  who  adopted  the  Report  of  the  Committee  of  Nine — 
a  Plan  of  Separation  so  called — had  no  power  to  act  in  the  premises. 

2.  Said  report  did  not  authorize  such  separation,  but  was  prospective,  and  was 
accompanied  with  conditions  and  terms  that  have  not  been  complied  with. 

3.  There  was  no  cause  of  complaint  against  the  action  of  the  General  Conference 
to  render  a  separation  necessary  or  expedient ;  their  general  action  (and  more  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew)  being  warranted  by  the  rules  and  usages  of  the 
Church. 


231 

4.  There  was  a  special  agreement  about  the  property  in  question,  which  should 
govern,  (if  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  is  available,)  in  virtue  of  which 
agreement  the  plaintiffs,  under  the  facts  of  the  case,  can  have  no  right  thereto. 

XI.  The  secession  of  the  members  newly  organized  as  a  separate  Church,  if  it  had 
been  legitimate  and  fully  authorized,  and  with  the  entire  consent  of  the  Church, 
would  not  entitle  them  to  any  portion  of  said  funds,  without  an  express  agreement  to 
that  effect,  sanctioned  by  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction. 

XII.  The  plaintiffs  are  not  entitled  to  any  relief  prayed  for  in  their  bill. 

HON.  RUFUS  CHOATE, — I  feel  extreme  regret,  may  it  please  your  Honours,  that  I 
have  been  obliged  to  avail  myself  so  largely  of  the  unfailing  kindness  of  the  Court ; 
and  I  hope  I  shall  be  able  to  requite  it  by  reasonable  brevity  at  last.  I  regret 
nearly  as'  much  that  I  could  not  hear  the  close  of  Mr.  Lord's  argument,  although, 
apart  from  the  instruction  and  delight  which  I  am  sure  I  should  have  derived  from  it, 
it  is  of  less  importance  since  I  do  not  intend  to  attempt  a  reply  to  his  address,  but 
rather  to  confine  myself  to  opening  at  large  and  independently  somewhat  the  general 
answer  to  the  plaintiffs'  case. 

The  question  presented  upon  this  record,  and  upon  these  proofs,  arises,  doubtless, 
out  of  a  transaction  of  singular  and  sad  interest,  and  one  suggestive  of  many  admo- 
nitions, and  thoughts,  and  fears — I  mean  the  dismemberment,  partial  and  pro  temporc, 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  But  it  is  after  all  a  question  of  mere  property, 
to  be  decided  according  to  a  strict  rule  of  law.  In  the  decision  of  that  question, 
I  have  not  supposed  the  Court  would  be  greatly  assisted — I  have  feared  they  might 
be  embarrassed  rather — by  any  attempt  on  my  part  to  trace  in  any  considerable  de- 
tail the  causes  which  have  conducted  to  this  dismemberment,  or  to  appreciate  the  re- 
lative measures  of  blame  or  responsibleness  which  may  seem  to  attach  to  the  actors 
or  antagonisms 'that  have  produced  it,  and  still  less  by  hearing  us  at  the  bar,  if  we 
were  inclined  to  do  so,  criminate  and  recriminate  upon  the  motives  that  have  led  to 
the  institution  or  defence  of  this  particular  suit.  All  that  office,  if  it  is  to  be  done, 
will  be  done  better,  perhaps,  elsewhere.  History,  which,  it  is  said,  keeps  a  durable 
record  of  all  characters  and  all  actions,  and  before  whose  tribunal  and  judgment  of  the 
dead,  Church,  and  priest,  and  people  must  answer  one  day,  will  perform  that  office  far 
better,  sine  ira  ct  sine  studio, — if  not  now,  when  some  generations  shall  have  passed 
away.  I  could  desire,  therefore,  to  confine  myself  exactly  and  closely  to  the  merits 
of  the  question  as  a  question  of  property.  Some  observations,  however,  which  have 
fallen  necessarily  from  my  learned  and  able  friend  in  the  course  of  his  very  skilful 
and  powerful  address,  some  things  that  have  been  very  emphatically  read  from  the 
proofs  in  the  case,  and  the  peculiarities  of  the  extraordinary  controversy  itself,  make 
it  necessary,  perhaps,  that  I  should  spend  a  few  minutes  in  the  putset  upon  topics 
which,  I  must  own,  seem  to  me  only  quite  remotely  bearing  upon  these  merits.  And 
we  naturally  feel  a  little  anxiety,  in  the  first  place,  to  address  ourselves  to  an  obser 
vation — not  perhaps  in  terms  made  by  my  learned  brother,  yet  obviously  presenting 
itself  to  any  one  adverting  to  the  aspects  of  the  controversy  and  these  parties — that  our 
attitude  is  not  a  very  graceful  one  to  begin  with,  inasmuch  as  we  seem  to  stand  here 
assenting  to  a  division  of  the  Church,  and  dissenting  from  a  partition  of  its  funds. 

I  hope  it  may  be  thought  enough,  in  the  first  place,  before  advancing  further,  on  be- 
half of  the  defendants  on  the  record  to  say — I  mean  the  defendants  who  have  charge  of 
the  property  which  is  the  very  subject  of  the  bill,  the  Book  Concern — that  they  received 
it  some  tune  since,  upon  trust,  to  apply  it  to  certain  definite,  inflexible,  and  peremptory 
charitable  uses,  for  the  benefit  of  a  certain  limited  and  particular  description  of  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Church,  their  wives,  families,  and  their  widows,  remaining  mem- 


232 

bcrs — remaining  members,  may  it  please  your  Honours,  for  that  is  the  qualification  on 
which  this  title  in  every  beneficiary  begins,  and  is  to  be  held  to  the  last — to  be  applied 
to  those  beneficiaries  under  the  direction  of  the  General  Conference  of  this  Church ;  and 
that  they  have  never  been  directed  nor  authorized,  so  far  as  they  can  understand  it, 
to  withdraw  a  farthing  from  these  uses,  or  to  pay  one  farthing  of  money  in  any  other 
direction,  and  therefore  they  must  suppose  that  they  hold  it  under  the  original  trust 
unaltered  in  the  slightest  particular.  Still  it  would  be  enough,  I  humbly  submit, 
for  me  to  say,  on  behalf  of  these  defendants  on  narrower  grounds,  and  for  the  other 
two  defendants  on  this  record, — I  mean  the  commissioners  appointed  under  the  Plan 
of  Separation,  to  act  in  the  division  of  this  fund, — it  would  be  enough  to  say  for 
them,  that  according  to  that  very  Plan  on  which  these  parties  bring  their  bill  to-day, 
they  are  directed  to  pay  nothing  to  the  plaintiffs,  but  upon  the  happening  .of  a  cer- 
tain definite  contingency,  the  rescision  of  the  restrictive  rule  by  the  annual  con- 
ferences, and  that  contingency  has  never  happened.  Prima  facie,  I  am  quite  sure 
this  is  a  sufficient  excuse  for  those  defendants  refusing  the  demand  out  of  Court,  and 
defending  a  suit  in.  Prima  facie,  I  am  sure  this  requires  them  to  do  both  one  and 
the  other.  Whether  these  annual  conferences  ought  or  ought  not  in  foro  conscicnti<z 
to  have  accedec}  to  the  recommendation  of  the  General  Conference  is  not  for  these 
defendants  to  consider.  Whether,  if  they  had  done  so,  it  would  have  answered  the 
purposes  at  large,  I  shall,  perhaps,  have  occasion  to  consider  in  the  progress  of  this 
discussion.  But  until  they  have  done  it,  surely,  surely  we  hold  the  fund  still  under 
the  old  trust  of  half  a  century  ago,  according  to  which  this  property  has  been 
administered  as  a  sacred  thing,  without  the  interruption  of  a  moment  to  this  hour, 
on  the  faith  of  a  religious  and  consistent  interpretation  and  administration  of  which 
scores,  hundreds,  thousands  have  lived,  and  laboured,  and  died,  or  live  and  labour  still, 
within  the  vineyard  and  bosom  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  which  we  do 
not  admit,  as  I  understand,  to  be  modified  or  displaced  in  the  slightest  degree. 

Of  the  nature  of  that  fund,  and  of  the  character  of  the  rights  of  the  beneficiaries 
in  it,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  speak  very  much  at  length  in  the  progress  of  this 
debate.  Enough  now,  and  for  the  defendants  of  record,  that  it  exists,  and  that,  ac- 
cording to  that  very  Plan,  but  for  which  these  plaintiffs  upon  their  own  concession 
are  only  a  mass  of  disconnected  seceders,  it  is  our  bounden  duty  to  everybody  so 
to  keep,  and  guard,  and  administer  it,  until  the  annual  conferences,  or  the  supreme 
authority  of  this  tribunal,  shall  ordain  a  different  disposition  of  it. 

So  much  for  the  defendants  of  record.  But  what  shall  I  say  of  the  beneficial  and 
larger  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  behind  1  Is  their  attitude  a  graceful 
one,  assenting  to  the  division  of  the  Church,  and  yet  not  assenting  to  a  division  of 
the  funds?  In  the  first  place,  the  Court  will  perceive  when  we  have  advanced  a 
little  further  in  this  argument,  that  we  do  not  admit  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — that  old,  grand,  well-compacted,  and  once  beautiful  community,  designed  by 
its  Creator,  by  Wesley,  and  by  the  generation  of  Wesley,  for  a  duration  on  earth 
without  end — is  dismembered  legally  and  totally.  We  do  not  even  admit  that  it  has 
been  dismembered  de  facto  and  by  secession  permanently.  We  know  very  well, 
what  we  will  call  for  convenience  in  the  progress  of  this  discussion,  secession  dc 
facto,  has  taken  place — a  secession,  improvident,  needless,  and  never  sufficiently  to 
be  deplored ;  and  creating  I  know  not  what  extraordinary  and  anomalous  relations 
between  the  scceder  and  the  Church.  But  we  have  not  yet  renounced  the  hope, — I, 
personally  and  professionally,  at  any  rate,  however  it  may  be  with  my  clients  and 
associates,  have  not  yet  renounced  the  hope,  and  spare  me  if  you  may  to  cherish  the 
qrateful  error  still,  that  when  your  Honours  shall  have  pronounced  this  secession  un- 
authorized in  matter  of  law,  as  well  as  unjustifiable,  perhaps,  upon  the  circumstances 


233 

in  point  of  fact  in  which  it  occurred, — I  have  not  renounced  the  hope  that  the  sober 
second  thought  may  supervene,  that  the  old  instincts  of  the  Methodist  community 
may  come  again  into  activity,  that  in  the  language  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  for 
whose  parting  words  of  kindness  I,  for  one,  stand  here  to  thank  them,  some  plan  of 
reunion  may  yet  be  proposed  by  the  wisdom  and  Christianity  that  still  enrich  this 
Church,  whereby  it  may  to  a  considerable  extent  be  reunited,  whereby  it  may  to  a 
considerable  extent  become  the  same  old  Church  again,  and  shine  with  something 
like  the  brightness  of  its  rising.  That  hope,  for  one,  I  have  not  yet  relinquished. 
Peradventure,  if  this  step  which  the  plaintiifs  have  taken  shall  turn  out  to  be  unpro- 
fitable as  well  as  devious,  it  may  be  .the  easier  to  retrace  it.  Many  times,  I  remem- 
ber the  historian  tells  us,  many  times  the  alienating  states  of  Greece  had  all  but  made 
up  their  minds  to  discontinue  the  common  consultation  of  the  Oracle  of  Delphi,  and 
seek  for  the  will  of  Jove  in  divers  local  temples,  had  not  the  impracticability  of  parti- 
tioning the  treasures  which  the  piety  of  so  many  generations  had  gathered  on  the 
charmed  neutral  ground,  necessitated  a  salutary  delay.  So,  possibly,  may  it  be  here. 
Allow  me  to  make  another  observation  or  two  entirely  preliminary  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  merits  of  this  case.  The  complaint  here  at  last  must  be,  before  this 
forum  and  before  the  outer  forum,  that  the  annual  conferences  have  not  adopted  the 
recommendation  of  the  General  Conference,  and  have  not  concurred  in  the  rescision 
of  the  restrictive  article.  Will  our  friends  of  the  South  take  a  little  time  when  they 
go  home,  and  inquire  whether  the  South  has  not  it  to  answer  for  itself!  I  do  not 
know  that  if  I  should  pause  I  could  establish  it  by  these  proofs  in  every  particular 
as  I  shall  assert  it,  but  I  do  aver,  that  when  the  annual  conferences,  in  1844  and 
1845,  began  first  to  vote  on  this  recommendation,  the  first  votes  that  were  thrown 
were  such  as  led  every  man  to  believe  that  it  would  have  been  adopted ;  and  it  was 
only  because  the  temper  of  the  South  began  to  be  so  warm,  and  so  high,  and  so  ex- 
asperating, that  these  hopes  were,  I  believe,  to  the  regret  of  a  great  majority  who 
were  either  observers  or  concerned,  wholly  overcast.  One  thing  I  know,  and  that  is, 
that  the  first  conferences  that  voted — I  mean  the  New  England  and  the  Northern  con- 
ferences generally,  from  which  the  greatest  opposition  had  been  anticipated — voted 
favourably  ;  and  when  the  tune  came  for  conferences  from  whom  less  opposition  had 
been  anticipated,  there  was  an  unexpected  and  scarcely  intelligible  turn  and  change 
of  opinion.  It  will  be  for  your  Honours  to  infer  what  may  be  the  explanation  of  the 
indisputable  fact.  I  apprehend  if  the  South  would  take  time  and  revise  those  publi- 
cations with  which  her  secular  and  her  religious  press  were  teeming  through  the 
summer,  and  autumn,  and  winter  following,  the  explanation  might  there  be  found. 
To  show  that  the  suggestion  is  not  wholly  imaginary,  I  think  I  am  able  to  find  some 
proofs  in  the  very  evidence  which  the  plaintiffs  have  introduced,  in  the  proceedings 
of  the  annual  conferences  of  the  South,  which  resulted  in  the  calling  of  the  Louisville 
Convention,  where  I  find  the  temper  of  the  Southern  press  recorded,  exposed,  and 
proved.  Here,  for  example,  on  page  13  of  the  2d  of  the  Proofs,  in  the  Missouri 
Conference,  it  was 

"  Resolved,  That  we  have  read  with  deep  regret  the  violent  proceedings  of  some  ol 
our  Southern  brethren  in  the  primary  meetings,  against  some  of  our  bishops  and  others." 

They  "  have  read  with  deep  regret."  Again,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Arkansas 
Conference  I  find  the  following : — 

"  Resolved,  That,  though  we  feel  ourselves  aggrieved,  and  have  been  wounded, 
without  cause,  in  the  house  of  our  friends,  we  have  no  disposition  to  impute  wrong  mo- 
tives to  the  majority  in  the  late  General  Conference,  and  no  inclination  to  endorse  those 
vindictive  proceedings  had  in  some  portions  of  the  South,  believing  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  Christians,  under  all  circumstances,  to  exercise  that  charity  which  oeareth  all  things  " 


234 

I  could  read  more  ;  but  I  have  read  enough,  I  think,  to  convey  my  meaning,  and 
read  enough  to  establish  my  suggestion.  Your  Honours  will  judge  what  the  temper 
must  have  been  that  induced  such  observations,  and  will  easily  appreciate  its  proba- 
ble or  its  inevitable  influence  upon  the  North. 

Let  me  say  one  thing  more,  and  I  come  nearer  the  merits  of  the  case.  Was  there 
not,  at  the  time  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  a  still  subsisting  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  although  that  Conference  deemed  itself  obliged  to  pronounce  the 
proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  1844,  as  to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  a  nullity  fiom 
beginning  to  end  ;  partly  because  the  annual  conferences  had  not  adopted  its  recom- 
mendations, but  also  on  larger  and  broader  grounds,  to  which  I  shall  make  allusion 
in  a  moment  1  Your  Honours  will  find  that  nevertheless,  on  page  95  of  the  journals 
of  that  Conference,  (and  the  reference  has  been  made  to  the  Court,)  they  proceeded  to 
provide  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this  great  controversy  by  arbitration.  The 
Court  will  find  there,  in  much  detail  and  particularity,  directions  given  to  their  agents 
to  prefer  an  arbitration  of  the  cause  to  the  gentlemen  representing  the  South,  if,  by 
the  advice  of  counsel,  they  should  ascertain  that  it  could  be  legally  and  properly 
done  ;  and  if  it  could  not  be  legally  done,  they  were  to  proceed  to  submit  the  mat- 
ter to  the  annual  conferences  in  succession,  to  obtain  their  consent.  That  matter 
was  submitted  to  the  annual  conferences,  their  assent  was  in  the  course  of  being 
rapidly  and  warmly  given,  when  they  were  interrupted  by  the  institution  of  this  suit. 
I  submit,  then,  that  it  is  no  fault  of  ours  that  this  cause  comes  on  to  be  heard  and 
determined  here  to-day  under  the  strict  principles  of  law  and  equity,  instead  of  being 
committed  to  a  tribunal  where  the  strict  principles  of  law  and  equity  might  be  tem- 
pered by  the  delicacies  of  the  extraordinary  crisis.  I  have  hesitated  much  in  deter- 
mining whether  or  not  I  ought  to  say  anything,  and  in  what  connexion  and  how 
much  I  should  say  upon  the  question,  whether  either  of  these  parties  here  before  the 
Court,  and  which  of  them,  may  be  thought  to  be  in  any  degree  of  fault  in  foro  con- 
scieTiticE,  or  otherwise,  for  the  dismemberment  of  the  Church.  I  am  bound  in  candour 
to  say  in  advance,  that  it  seems  to  me  to  be  too  remotely  connected,  under  any  re- 
spect, if  at  all,  with  the  real  merits  of  the  case  ;  and  yet  it  is  so  far  connected  with 
those  merits  under  certain  views,  that  I  do  not  know  that  it  can  be  altogether  dis- 
pensed with  as  a  consideration  to  be  adverted  to.  This  consideration  is  very  remotely, 
if  at  all,  connected  with  the  merits  of  the  case  ;  for  whether  the  proceedings  of  the 
General  Conference  of  1844,  touching  Bishop  Andrew,  were  competent  or  expedient 
or  not,  and  even  if  they  were  neither  competent  nor  expedient,  yet.  beyond  all  man- 
ner of  controversy,  unless  this  Church  was  divided  in  twain  by  a  body  constitutionally 
competent  to  so  transcendent  an  act,  unless  every  condition  of  the  Plan  of  Separa- 
tion has  been  performed,  unless  the  annual  conferences  have  in  point  of  fact  acceded 
to  the  recommendation  of  the  General  Conference,  and  rescinded  the  restrictive  rule, 
I  do  not  see  how  the  plaintiffs  can  by  possibility  maintain  themselves  on  this  bill. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  that  Church  has  been  divided  by  an  authority  constitutionally 
competent  to  so  great  an  act,  if  the  conditions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  have  been 
severally  complied  with  by  the  annual  conferences,  then  I  agree  that  the  plaintiffs 
are  entitled  to  recover,  however  causeless,  and  however  deeply  and  forever  to  be  de- 
plored, however  severely  to  be  condemned  by  morality  and  by  patriotism,  was  the 
act  of  secession  itself.  Therefore,  I  think  the  Court  is  not  called  upon  directly  to 
discharge  the  very  delicate  office  of  inquiring  on  which  rests,  mainly  or  at  all,  the 
blame  in  this  business.  Yet  I  hope  your  Honours  will  indulge  me  when  I  proceed 
to  say  that  I  cannot  tacitly  admit  that  the  party  I  represent  here  has  been  in  the 
least  degree  in  fault  for  this  transaction. 

I  cannot,  either  as  a  citizen  in  the  most  private  capacity,  or  as  a  professional  party 


235 

in  this  cause,  admit  that  this  has  been  the  result  of  an  inevitable  moral  necessity.  I 
do  not  believe  in  the  suggestion  which  we  find  so  liberally  scattered  through  the  de- 
fence, and  of  which  so  much  has  been  said  by  my  learned  friend,  that  the  dismem- 
berment of  this  Church  has  been  the  result  of  an  invincible  or  an  inevitable  moral 
necessity.  Why,  excellent  good  reasons  have  been  given  why  the  Church  should 
be  dissolved,  if  not  now,  hereafter ;  excellent  reasons  have  been  given  why,  on  ac- 
count of  the  great  extent  of  country,  and  the  difficulty  of  traversing  it  by  the  itinerant 
superintendent  organism,  it  should  be  dissolved  ;  reasons  why  it  should  be  dissolved 
on  account  of  antagonisms  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  Reasons  have  been  given  for 
this  dissolution.  So  reasons  may  be  given,  and  good  reasons  may  be  given,  why 
everyting  should  be  dissolved  ;  why  the  Union,  the  larger  secular  Union  that  embo- 
soms them  all,  should  be  dissolved ;  why  the  solemn  temples  and  gorgeous  palaces 
of  the  globe  itself  should  be  dissolved.  To  what  catastrophe  the  progress  of  events 
might  have,  some  time  or  another,  carried  this  Church,  or  may  carry  anything ;  to 
what  sea,  shoreless  and  bottomless,  and  lighted  by  no  sun,  the  stream  of  progress 
might  have  borne  the  Church,  or  'may  bear  the  nation,  nobody  of  course  can  be  cer- 
tain that  he  knows.  But  I  do  submit  that  the  dismemberment  of  this  Church,  as  it 
actually  happened,  in  the  time,  under  the  circumstances,  and  for  the  reasons,  on  that 
day  when  it  happened,  was  causeless  and  needless,  as  well  as  deplorable  in  the 
highest  degree.  Is  it  not  pessimi  exempli  that  we  should  allow  persons  standing  irt 
a  public  capacity  to  trace  the  consequences  of  their  own  acts,  and  the  work  of  their 
own  hands,  to  the  finger  of  Providence  1 

May  it  please  your  Honours,  the  will,  and  reason,  and  Christianity  of  one  generation 
made  this  Church  ;  the  will,  and  reason,  and  Christianity  of  another  generation  might 
have  kept  it  together.  One  ten-thousandth  part  of  the  ability  of  speech  and  pen, 
and  one  ten-thousandth  part  of  the  piety,  and  patriotism,  and  morality,  by  which  in  both 
its  sections  it  has  been  enriched,  could  have  held  it  together ;  and  I  say  should  have 
been  required  to  hold  it  together,  until  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  should  become 
the  kingdoms  of  the  Ruler  of  kings.  I  do  not  admit  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  there 
is  no  fault  anywhere  in  the  division  of  this  Church ;  and  I  do  not  admit  that  that  fault, 
any  appreciable  portion  of  it,  rests  with  us. 

I  know  the  prodigious  ability  by  which  I  am  to  be  followed.  I  am  a  unionist,  as 
my  learned  friend  is  a  unionist,  to  the  very  last  beat  of  my  heart.  I  deplore  this  as 
few  can  deplore  it ;  but  it  is  before  your  Honours ;  I  am  called  upon  to  examine  it 
in  the  course  of  my  professional  duty.  I  meet  it,  and  mean  to  meet  it,  directly  in  the 
face.  I  therefore  respectfully  submit  : — 1st.  That  the  separation  has  not  irrevocably 
happened  ;  2d.  What  has  happened  has  not  been  the  result  of  a  blind  and  over-ruling 
necessity  ;  3d.  If  there  have  been  moral  faults,  they  have  not  been  ours. 

We  cannot  of  course  take  one  single  step  in  this  discussion  without  pausing  to 
see  on  what  ground  it  was  that  the  minority  in  the  Convention  of  1844  declared  their 
judgment  of  a  necessity  of  a  separation.  We  cannot  advance  one  step,  as  I  appre- 
hend, in  the  attempt  to  appreciate  the  true  origin  of  the  controversy,  or  the  respon- 
sible authors  of  it, — or  the  responsible  participators  in  it, — until  we  ascertain  the  pre- 
cise ground  on  w^ich  the  minority,  looking  the  majority  in  the  face,  apprized  them  why 
they  initiated  here  in  New- York  the  proceedings  of  separation  which  were  consum- 
mated by  the  Convention  at  Louisville. 

It  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  main  ground  on  which  they  took  this  step  and  an- 
nounced their  purpose  of  accomplishing  it,  was  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  of 
1844,  in  the  matter  of  Bishop  Andrew.  That  was  the  main,  and  substantial,  and 
prominent  ground  on  which  they  then  and  there  declared  their  purpose  to  effect  a 
separation.  I  know  very  well  that  now  all  manner  of  reasons  are  given,  and  may 


236 

well  be  given,  and  have  forcibly  been  given.  But  it  is  now  we  hear  it  said  that  the 
country  has  grown  a  great  deal  too  large.  We  hear  it  said  now  that  irreconcilable 
antagonisms  were  being  developed  in  regard  to  freedom  and  slavery.  We  hear  it 
said  that  moral  necessity  has  intervened  and  has  done  this  work.  The  question 
which  I  put  to  the  Court  however,  is,  what  reason  the  minority  gave  in  that  Conven- 
tion that  day  before  the  act  was  irrevocably  done,  whilst  it  was  still  within  the  con- 
trol of  the  majority,  while  they  might  have  tempered  it,  receded  from  it,  abandoned 
it,  while  both  sides  still  held  it  under  their  own  control  a  great  trust  for  the  nation  1 
The  question  is,  I  contend,  What  is  the  reason  the  minority  then,  looking  the  majority 
in  the  face,  assigned  for  the  act  of  separation  on  which  they  were  about  to  enter  1 
And  I  respectfully  submit,  that  when  your  Honours  come  to  sift  that,  and  sift  it  care- 
fully upon  these  proofs,  you  will  find  that  it  rested  on  the  action  of  this  Conference, 
whose  whole  action,  as  I  shall  only  have  too  much  pleasure  in  showing  the  Court, 
down  to  that  time,  had  been  marked  uniformly  by  conciliation,  by  conservatism,  by 
a  parental  and  equal  regard  to  the  feelings  and  interests  and  sentiments  of  every 
•  section  of  the  country,  touching  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  That  was  the  main 
cause  assigned  by  the  minority  ;  and  that  I  may  leave  no  doubt  about  that,  let  me 
call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  No.  1  of  the  proofs,  p.  97,  where  we  find  in  their 
own  declaration,  under  their  own  hand,  the  reasons  assigned.  One  or  two  others  are 
assigned,  but  I  submit  most  respectfully,  as  I  shall  attempt  to  prove,  that  these  are 
reasons  of  no  importance  at  all,  and  that  it  comes  at  last  to  the  proceedings  against 
Bishop  Andrew.  But  I  will  read  it  exactly  as  it  stands  : — 

"  The  delegates  of  the  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  take  leave  to  declare 
to  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  continued 
agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church,"  (that  is 
one  reason,)  "  the  frequent  action  on  the  subject  in  the  General  Conference,"  (that 
is  two,)  and  especially  the  extra-judicial  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  which 
resulted,  on  Saturday  last,  in  the  virtual  suspension  of  him  from  his  office  as  super- 
intendent, must  produce  a  state  of  things  in  the  South  which  renders  a  continuance 
of  the  jurisdiction  of  this  General  Conference  inconsistent  with  the  success  of  the 
ministry  in  the  slaveholding  States." 

Laying  that  aside  for  a  moment  and  turning  to  the  Discipline  of  this  newly-organ- 
ized Southern  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  constructed,  as  it  seems,  much  more 
deliberately  a  year  or  two  afterwards,  I  find  them  there  reciting,  totidem  verbis,  the 
same  three  reasons,  the  leading  one  of  which  is  the  proceedings  against  Bishop 
Andrew. 

If  the  Court  choose  to  pursue  that  inquiry  a  little  further,  I  refer  to  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  annual  conferences  of  the  South,  which  have  been  put  in  evidence  as 
among  those  proceedings  which  led  to  the  call  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  and  ulti- 
mately to  the  separation.  Your  Honours  will  be  struck  with  the  fact,  that,  with  the 
precision  of  stereotype,  they  repeat  one  another  right  over  again,  almost  from  New- 
York  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  By  reading  in  our  Proofs  No.  2,  we  find  that  they 
abandon  every  cause  of  separation  but  the  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew  and  Mr. 
Harding  ;  that  of  fourteen  annual  conferences,  five  forgot  the  case  %f  Mr.Harding  al- 
together, and  confined  themselves  to  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew ;  so  that,  in  point  of 
fact,  it  is  nothing  in  the  world  but  just  this  :  That  these  conferences  take  up  the  de- 
claration published  by  the  minority,  drop  the  first  two  causes  therein  alleged  for  the 
separation,  and  lay  hold  upon  the  proceedings  against  Bishop  Andrew,  some  of  them 
adding  to  it  the  proceedings  against  Mr.  Harding,  and  then  away  it  goes,  the  mere 
echo  from  this  city  of  the  cry  beginning  here — an  echo  running  without  the  vires 
acquircndum,  for  it  loses  rather  than  gains  as  it  goes,  until  it  dies  in  the  Gulf  of 


237 

Mexico.     There,  before  the  majority,  and  here  before  this  Court,  stand  the  reasons 
on  which  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  was  severed  by  its  guardians. 

I  have  now  to  ask  your  attention  back  again  with  a  little  particularity,  I  hope  not 
too  much  detail,  to  the  reasons  in  the  declaration  of  the  minority  themselves  ;  and  I 
proceed,  in  the  first  place,  with  great  brevity  to  eliminate,  to  throw  out,  the  first 
two,  in  order  that  I  may,  if  I  can,  conduct  the  judgment  of  the  Court  to  discern  that 
it  is  Bishop  Andrew,  and  nothing  but  Bishop  Andrew,  upon  which  this  Church  was  at 
last  dissolved.  Your  Honours  will  observe  they  give  three  reasons.  I  turn  back  to 
page  97.  In  the  first  place,  they  declare  as  one  of  the  causes  "  the  continued  agitation 
zf  the  subject  of  slavery  and  abolition  in  a  portion  of  the  Church."  "  The  continued 
agitation  of  the  subject  of  slavery"  in  some  of  the  Northern  conferences — that  is  a 
reason  for  which  a  minority  propose  to  dissolve  the  Church.  The  agitation  in  a 
portion  of  the  Northern  conferences,  I  shall  show  to  the  Court,  created  no  more  diffi- 
culty for  the  South,  carried  no  more  menace  to  the  South,  endangered  the  rights  of 
the  South  no  more  than  the  idea  that  Lake  Winnipiseogee  up  in  New-Hampshire  at 
the  next  change  of  the  moon  will  overflow  its  banks  and  lay  the  cotton  lands  of  South 
Carolina  under  the  water ;  not  a  particle,  not  a  particle  in  the  slightest  degree.  To 
be  sure  there  had  been  local  agitation  in  the  Northern  conferences  ;  there  is  local 
agitation  everywhere,  and  the  sky  is  not  at  all  the  clearer  or  the  purer  for  it.  How 
stands  the  fact  here  1  I  do  not  go  beyond  the  proofs  before  the  Court.  How  stands 
the  matter  of  local  agitation  in  the  Northern  conferences  1  Of  course  nobody  supposes 
that  I  am  here  to  defend  it  ;  but  I  am  not  here  to  see  it  overstated,  and  such  conse- 
quences as  the  taking  down  of  a  structure  built  for  immortality  on  earth  deduced 
from  it,  without  giving  our  commentary.  How  stood  that  matter  1  Here  began  an 
agitation  in  our  conferences.  After  having  aired  the  local  vocabulary  and  breathed 
through  the  local  lungs  as  long  as  it  could  before  it  came  here  in  1836,  it  met  with  a 
dignified  rebuke  by  the  General  Conference,  and  went  home  for  a  time.  That  was 
in  1836.  It  came  here  again  in  1840,  upon  a  petition  of  0.  Scott  and  others,  and 
was  met  in  a  very  admirable  manner,  and  with  the  same  decisive  result,  and  back  it 
rolled  again ;  and  those  very  petitioners,  to  whom  Mr.  Lord  has  referred,  O.  Scott  and 
others,  went  back  and  seceded  from  the  Northern  annual  conferences,  because 
although  they  found  them,  in  a  certain  sense,  anti-slavery  conferences,  they  found 
them  Methodists,  they  found  them  Unionists,  they  found  them  true  to  the  discipline, 
and  order,  and  the  preservation  of  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and,  through  the  Church, 
of  the  larger  interests  which  surround  the  Church,  if  there  are  larger  interests  than 
those  of  the  Church.  They  seceded,  and  the  local  conferences  had  rest. 

I  now  propose  to  submit  to  your  Honours  that,  upon  a  view  of  these  facts,  we  have 
in  1840,  and  again  in  1844,  under  the  hands  of  the  bishops  themselves,  reporting  the 
condition  of  Methodism  to  the  General  Conference,  proof  of  everything  I  have  said, 
and  conclusive  proof,  that  although  there  had  been  some  local  agitation,  though 
there  were  some  exceptions  to  the  general  fact,  the  general  condition  even  of  New- 
England  Methodism  was  calm,  and  quiet,  and  steady.  I  call  your  attention,  in  the 
first  place,  to  an  "  extract  from  an  Address  of  the  Bishops  to  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  : — 

"  It  has  been  the  constant  aim  and  united  endeavour  of  your  general  superin- 
tendents to  preserve  uniformity  and  harmony  in  these  respects ;  and,  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable, prevent  conflicting  action  in  all  the  official  bodies  in  the  Church.  But 
although  we  record  with  unfeigned  gratitude  to  the  God  of  all  grace  and  consolation, 
the  general  peace,  and  harmony,  and  prosperity  of  the  body  since  your  last  session/' 
(what  more  can  you  say  of  the  general  human  condition  anywhere  than  this?)  "  it  be- 
comes our  painful  duty  to  lay  before  you  some  exceptions  to  this  happy  and  pros- 
perous condition." 


238 

So  then  the  general  prosperous,  peaceful,  and  harmonious  condition  of  the  body  is 
;he  great  fact  for  which  they  thank  God,  and  it  is  only  the  exceptions  to  that  on 
which  they  proceed  to  observe.  And  our  secular  Union  would  not  last  long  if  general 
contentment,  general  peace,  general  harmony,  would  not  testify  it.  If  because  there 
is  a  "  Shay's  insurrection  "  in  one  State,  and  a  ripple  here  and  there  floats  over  the 
surface,  the  Union  is  to  be  taken  down  by  the  patriotism  of  this  land,  surely,  surely 
it  is  not  the  creation  forever  which  we  had  the  dream  it  was. 

Let  me  pursue  now  the  course  of  this  address  throughout  the  address,  and  I  will 
verify  from  it  exactly  what  I  state.  There  had  been  some  ezceptions,  some  of  what 
we  may  colloquially  call  "  flare-ups,"  here  and  there,  and  had  met,  not  the  break- 
water of  the  Baltimore  Conference,  but  the  breakwater  of  the  General  Conference, 
which  had  rolled  them  back.  The  bishops  say  there  were  some  exceptions  to  this 
prosperous  condition.  Then  they  go  on  : — 

"  At  the  last  session  of  the  General  Conference  the  subject  of  slavery  and  its  abo- 
lition was  extensively  discussed,  and  vigorous  exertions  made  to  effect  new  legisla- 
tion upon  it.  But  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  ground,  aided  by  the  light 
of  past  experience,  it  was  the  solemn  conviction  of  the  Conference  that  the  interests 
of  religion  would  not  be  advanced  by  any  additional  enactments  in  regard  to  it. 

"  In  your  Pastoral  Address  to  the  ministers  and  people  at  your  last  session,  with 
at  unanimity,  and,  as  we  believe,  in  the  true  spirit  of  the  ministers  of  the  peaceful 
ipel  of  Christ,  you  solemnly  advised  the  whole  body  to  abstain  from  all  abolition 
rements,  and  from  agitating  the  exciting  subject  in  the  Church.  This  advice  was 

'perfect  agreement  with  the  individual  as  well  as  associated  views  of  your  super- 

tendents.  But,  had  we  differed  from  you  in  opinion,  in  consideration  of  the  age, 
wisdom,  experience,  and  official  authority  of  the  General  Conference,  we  should  have 
felt  ourselves  under  a  solemn  obligation  to  be  governed  by  your  counsel.  We  have 
endeavoured,  both  in  our  official  administration,  and  in  our  private  intercourse  with 
the  preachers  and  members,  to  inculcate  the  sound  policy  and  Christian  spirit  of  your 
Pastoral  Address.  And  it  affords  us  great  pleasure  to  be  able  to  assure  you,  that  our 
efforts  in  this  respect  have  been  very  generally  approved,  and  your  advice  cordially 
received  and  practically  observed  in  a  very  large  majority  of  the  annual  conferences, 
as  will  more  fully  appear  to  you  on  the  careful  examination  of  the  journals  of  those 
bodies  for  the  last  four  years.  But  we  regret  that  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  in 
some"  (exceptional,  it  will  be  perceived)  "  of  the  Northern  and  Eastern  conferences, 
in  contravention  of  your  Christian  and  pastoral  counsel,  and  of  your  best  efforts  to 
carry  it  into  effect,  the  subject  has  been  agitated  in  such  forms,  and  in  such  a  spirit, 
as  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.  This  unhappy  agitation  has  not  been  con- 
fined to  the  annual  conferences,  but  has  been  introduced  into  quarterly  conferences, 
and  made  the  absorbing  business  of  self-created  bodies  in  the  bosom  of  our  beloved 
Zion." 

The  bishops  then  go  on  to  indicate  the  garb  under  which  this  presents  itself,  and 
then  express  the  opinions  of  wise  men  as  to  its  character  and  tendency.  On  page  60 
they  come  to  the  great  result  in  point  of  fact : — 

"  It  is  justly  due  to  a  number  of  the  annual  conferences,  in  which  a  majority,  or  a 
very  respectable  minority,  of  the  members  are  professedly  abolitionists,  to  say,  that 
they  occupy  a  very  different  ground,  and  pursue  a  very  different  course,  from  those 
of  their  brethren  who  have  adopted  ultra  principles  and  measures  in  this  unfortunate, 
and,  we  think,  unprofitable  controversy.  The  result  of  action  had  in  such  confer- 
ence? on  the  resolution  of  the  New-England  Conference,  recommending  a  very  im-i 
portant  change  in  our  general  rule  on  slavery,  is  satisfactory  proof  of  this  fact,  and 
affords  us  strong  and  increasing  confidence  that  the  unity  and  peace  of  the  Church 
.are  not  to  be  materially  affected  by  this  exciting  subject." 

So,  then,  without  advancing  a  step  further,  it  is  all  narrowed  down  to  this  :  a  sin- 
gle conference,  the  New-England  Conference,  proposes  an  important  change  in  the 


239 

general  rule  on  slavery  ;  that  is  submitted  to  conferences,  a  majority  of  whose  mem- 
bers are  actually  abolitionists ;  and  even  these  conferences,  a  number  of  them — so  many 
that  their  example  is  cited  as  satisfactory  proof  of  the  fact,  that  the  peace  and  unity 
were  not  to  be  seriously  affected — so  many  even  of  the  abolition  conferences  disap- 
proved the  change  proposed,  that  the  bishops  are  relieved,  as  they  declare,  from  all 
possible  apprehension  of  difficulty  from  that  source.  The  bishops  go  on  to  say  : — 

"  It  is  believed  that  men  of  ardent  temperament,  whose  zeal  may  have  been  some- 
what in  advance  of  their  knowledge  and  discretion,  have  made  such  advances  in  the 
abolition  enterprise  as  to  produce  a  reaction.  A  few  preachers  and  members,  disap- 
pointed in  their  expectations,  and  despairing  of  the  success  of  their  cause  in  the 
Methodist  Church,"  (surely  they  were  the  best  judges  of  what  success  the  Church 
promised  to  their  enterprises,)  "  have  withdrawn  from  our  fellowship,  and  connected 
themselves  with  associations  more  congenial  with  their  views  and  feelings  ;  and  others, 
in  similar  circumstances,  may  probably  follow  their  example.  But  we  rejoice  in  be- 
lieving that  these  secessions  will  be  very  limited,  and  that  the  great  body  of  Metho- 
dists in  these  States  will  continue  as  they  have  been — one  and  inseparable." 

If  that  continued  to  be  the  state  of  the  Church  down  to  1844,  I  ask  whether  it  is 
possible  to  attach  any  weight  to  the  reason  which  stands  first  in  the  declaration  of  the 
minority  in  this  case,  that  is,  the  continued  agitation  in  the  local  Church  1  Now,  there 
is  not  a  solitary  particle  of  proof  in  this  case,  that  from  1840  to  1844  the  local  agitation 
increased  in  the  slightest  degree.  In  1840  the  bishops  say  they  had  substantially 
encountered  and  suppressed  it.  In  1840  they  had  so  far  suppressed  it  that  they  b£»  . 
lieved  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Methodist  Church  was  quite  sure  not  to  be  seriouslySJ' 
endangered  by  it ;  and  that  state  of  things,  so  far  as  there  is  a  scintilla  of  evidence 
in  this  case  to  control  it,  remained,  by  the  mercy  and  blessing  of  God,  down  to  1844. 
Yet  then,  when  a  foregone  conclusion  was  to  be  adopted  and  vindicated  by  a  mani- 
festo, our  brethren  of  the  South  suffered  themselves  by  habit  to  take  up  and  repeat 
again  the  cry  of  local  agitation  on  the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Methodist  Church. 
To  show  that  this  does  not  rest  altogether  on  the  mere  absence  of  proof,  on  the  part 
of  the  plaintiffs,  to  show  that  this  agitation  went  on  increasing  in  the  meantime,  I 
have  the  pleasure  to  call  attention  in  this  immediate  connexion  to  a  portion  of  the 
address  of  the  very  same  bishops,  including  Bishops  Andrew  and  Soule,  and  every 
Methodist  bishop  of  1844,  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844.  It  is  to  be  found  on 
page  131  of  the  1st  of  the  Proofs.  They  are  dealing  with  another  subject,  speaking 
diversa  in  toto,  and  sum  up  in  the  fulness  of  grateful  hearts  and  intelligent  official 
superintendents,  the  condition  of  this  Church.  They  say : — 

"  In  this  happy  state  of  things,  embracing  all  the  essential  elements  of  the  voluntary 
principle,  the  ministers  dependant  upon  the  people  whom  they  served  in  the  Gospel 
word  and  ordinances,  and  the  people  united  to  their  ministers  by  the  bonds  of  affec- 
tion and  esteem,  the  work  of  the  Lord  steadily  advanced  ;  new  and  extensive  fields 
of  labour  were  constantly  opening  before  us ;  the  borders  of  our  Zion  were  greatly 
enlarged  ;  and  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  were  brought  under  Divine  influence, 
and  joined  in  the  communion  of  the  Church.  The  events  of  each  succeeding  year 
have  afforded  additional  proofs  of  the  soundness  of  the  system,  and  of  its  adaptation 
to  the  ends  for  which  it  was  designed." 

I  submit  that  we  show  that  the  first  reason  assigned  by  the  minority  in  their  De- 
claration of  reasons  why  a  state  of  things  would  be  produced  which  would  render  a 
separation  necessary,  is  totally  unsupported  in  matter  of  fact,  and  that  I  shall  have 
no  difficulty,  as  I  believe  I  shall  have  none,  in  satisfying  the  Court  that  the  single 
reason  at  last  was  the  action  upon  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew. 

The  second  reason  which  they  assign  is,  on  the  facts  of  the  case,  stranger  still — 


240 

"  the  frequent  action  on  that  subject  in  the  General  Conference."  Why  was  it  so 
much  a  question  whether  there  had  been  frequent  action  on  this  subject  in  the  Gene- 
ral Conference,  as  what  that  action  had  been  1  And  will  it  not  almost  astonish  the 
Court  when  they  come  to  see,  upon  a  review  of  the  evidence  to  which  I  will  ask  their 
attention,  that  although  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  had  been  somewhat 
frequent,  yet  it  had  been  eminently — I  may  say  admirably — all  the  while  the  most 
calm,  conservative,  parental,  and  discreet  that  ever  marked  the  action  of  any  admin- 
istrative body  under  any  system,  ecclesiastical  or  political,  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ; 
that  it  had  been  from  beginning  to  end,  I  mean  over  the  period  to  which  the  remarks 
of  the  declarant  minority  apply,  nothing  less  and  nothing  more  than  an  anxious  desire- 
to  stand  on  the  old  path,  to  administer  the  old  discipline,  to  respect  every  local  sen- 
sibility, and  to  preserve  the  spirit  of  unity  in  the  bonds  of  a  universal  peace.  Let  us 
see  if  it  be  not  so  ;  and  for  the  proofs  of  it  I  need  not  go  beyond  fifty  or  one  hundred 
pages  of  the  evidence  which  both  parties  have  united  in  laying  before  this  Court. 
There  had  been  frequent  occasions  for  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  upon  this 
subject,  for  which  they  were  not  responsible.  I  have  already  stated,  in  addressing 
myself  to  the  subject  of  local  agitation,  the  fact  that  as  early  as  1836  local  agitators 
sent  their  petitions  to  the  General  Conference,  asking  for  new  legislation  on  the  sub- 
ject of  slavery.  I  have  once  read,  but  it  is  so  much  to  my  present  purpose  that  I 
hope  your  Honours  will  indulge  me  in  reading  it  again,  how  that  effort  in  1836  was 
met  by  the  General  Conference.  At  the  opening  of  the  Conference  in  1840,  the 
bishops  in  their  address  say  (page  58) : — 

"  At  the  last  session  of  the  General  Conference  the  subject  of  slavery  and  its 
abolition  was  extensively  discussed,  and  vigorous  exertions  made  to  effect  new  legis- 
lation upon  it.  But  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  ground,  aided  by  the 
light  of  past  experience,  it  was  the  solemn  conviction  of  the  Conference  that  the  inter- 
ests of  religion  would  not  be  advanced  by  any  additional  enactments  in  regard  to  it." 

This  General  Conference,  whose  "  frequent  action"  on  the  subject  of  slavery  was 
to  lead  to  a  dissolution  of  this  Church,  opens  the  series  of  its  action,  on  which  it  is 
this  day  to  answer  before  this  tribunal,  by  resolving,  as  far  back  as  1836,  that,  aided 
by  the  light  of  past  experience,  it  was  their  solemn  conviction  that  the  interests  of 
religion  would  not  be  advanced  by  any  additional  enactments  on  the  subject  of 
slavery.  They  had  occasion  to  act  again.  In  1840,  O.  Scott  presented  it  on  behalf 
of  an  annual  conference  whom  he  represented.  About  that  same  time,  or  rather  in 
the  interval  between  1836  and  1840,  our  admirable  Wesleyan  brethren  in  England, 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  indissoluble  the  tie  of  Methodism  always  remains, 
came  here,  in  the  true  spirit  of  an  uninstructed  and  mischievous  foreign  philanthropy, 
with  their  suggestions  upon  the  subject  of  our  slavery.  And  again,  during  that 
same  interval,  from  1836  to  1840,  some  difficulty  arose  in  one  of  the  annual  confer- 
ences as  to  some  proceedings  in  Westmoreland,  Virginia.  On  all  these  occasions, 
as  well  as  on  the  particular  occasion  to  which  I  have  made  reference  from  the  bishops' 
address  of  1840,  the  General  Conference  was  called  upon  to  act.  I  shall  not  go  par- 
ticularly into  that  subject,  although  it  would  give  me  great  pleasure  to  do  so,  and  I 
should  find  from  it  a  refutation,  the  most  brilliant  and  perfect,  of  the  suggestion,  that 
the  frequent  action  on  this  subject  by  the  General  Conference  afforded  any  ground 
for  uneasiness  or  separation  on  the  part  of  the  South.  Yet  I  can  only  leave  it  to  the 
Court,  with  an  earnest  entreaty  that  hi  judging  of  these  last  days  of  the  session  of  a 
General  Conference  of  a  united  Church,  they  would  read— I  am  sure  as  evidence  it 
is  important  that  it  should  be  read,  and  as  instruction  on  the  general  case,  I  am  sure 
it  is  not  undeserving  the  attention  of  the  Court — the  address  of  the  bishops  in  1840, 


241 

the  reply  to  the  British  Wesleyan  Conference  in  1840,  the  report  upon  the  proceed- 
ings on  the  Westmoreland  petition,  also  in  1840;  all  bound  in  this  book,  a  series 
entire,  and  making  up  the  record  of  the  last  days  of  that  body.  I  submit  that  the 
result  is  beyond  a  solitary  particle  of  doubt,  as  I  have  before  said  that  it  was,  emi- 
nently calm,  and  conservative,  and  just.  I  am  constrained  to  say,  but  I  say  it  with 
regret,  that  when  the  minority  put  into  their  Declaration  the  frequent  action  of  the 
General  Conference  on  this  subject,  as  a  reason  why  they  should  quit  us,  it  is  a  rea- 
son against  a  parental  hand,  that,  down  to  that  instant  had  done  nothing  in  the  world 
but  distribute  the  paternal  goods,  and  the  paternal  heart,  with  an  equal  and  just  impar- 
tiality, upon  all  the  objects  of  a  common  love.  I  strike  that  reason,  then,  out  of  the 
Declaration. 

The  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  as  your  Honours  will  observe,  is  not  mentioned  by  the 
declarants.  It  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  South,  as  a  case  on 
which  the  separation  was  effected.  I  believe,  in  matter  of  fact,  that  it  was  not  even 
a  subject  of  protest  in  the  Conference  of  1844.  In  that  very  powerful  paper,  which 
was  read  so  emphatically  and  so  well  the  other  day,  which  is  called  "  the  Protest," 
there  is  not  a  woid  in  relation  to  the  proceedings  against  Mr.  Harding.  Therefore, 
perhaps,  I  need  hardly  pause  here  for  a  moment,  even  to  throw  that  element  out  of 
this  general  controversy.  Yet  it  would  hardly  do  to  leave  it  unnoticed  in  these 
general  reasons.  I  do  not  intend  to  say  one  word  upon  the  point  of  law ;  that  I 
refer  to  my  eminent  associate.  But  morally,  what  is  this  Harding  case  1  Exactly 
and  merely  this :  There  is,  and  has  stood  on  the  Discipline  of  this  Church  for  I  know 
not  how  many  years,  but  nearly  coeval  with  its  origin,  that  if  a  person  hold  office  hi 
the  Church  in  a  State  in  which  emancipation  is  legally  practicable,  he  shall  be  sus- 
pended from  his  office  until  he  emancipates  his  slaves.  It  seems  that  under  that 
rule  Mr.  Harding's  was  a  case  of  having  become  the  holder  of  slaves  and  of  living  in 
a  State  where  emancipation  was  practicable.  He  belonged  to  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence. The  Court  knows  that  it  is  a  settled  rule  of  discipline  of  this  Church  that  every 
preacher,  under  the  degree  of  bishop,  is  tried  by  the  annual  conference  to  which  he 
belongs.  This  gentleman  was  tried  by  his  own  conference,  convicted  by  his  own 
conference,  and  suspended  durante  impedimenta.  He  appealed  to  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1844,  and  they  approved  the  decision  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference. 
That  is  the  Harding  case.  Without  entering  into  an  inquiry  whether  here  was  or 
was  not  a  mistake  in  a  matter  of  law — and  I  am  assured  that  emancipation  is  legally 
practicable  in  the  conference  in  which  he  lived,  that  it  is  achieved  there  without  scan- 
dal or  difficulty,  although  that  may  be  a  subject  upon  which  there  is  divided  profes- 
sional opinion — I  ask  your  Honours  if  it  be  competent  to  the  minority  to  stand  before 
the  majority,  and  before  the  Church,  and  before  this  higher  tribunal,  and  allege  such 
a  trial  and  such  a  conviction  as  that  gravely  as  a  reason  for  the  dissolution  of  such 
a  union  as  this.  Suppose  it  a  mistake  in  point  of  fact  and  law.  Suppose,  if  I  may 
take  an  illustration  which  my  learned  friend  employed  the  other  day  not  exactly  in 
the  same  way,  that  a  Judge  of  a  Circuit  Court  pronounces  a  decision,  it  is  carried  to 
his  brethren  of  the  Supreme  Judicial  Bench,  and  affirmed,  and  thereupon  a  local  com- 
munity becomes  exasperated,  and  declares  itself  aggrieved,  and  is  to  dissolve  the 
Union.  Is  it  a  case  for  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  admitting  a  mistake  in  fact,  and 
a  mistake  in  law]  Is  an  exasperated  local  constituency  an  admirable  judge  of  law 
and  fact  ]  Is  that  one  case  of  a  conscientious  error  in  the  judgment  of  conscientious 
men  to  shake  down  pillars  that  ought  to  reach  the  centre,  and  support  capitals  that 
should  sparkle  in  the  skies  1  Is  that  a  reason  which  is  to  stand  here  or  anywhere  1 
Would  the  historian  of  this  more  than  Council  of  Trent,  when  he  comes  to  write  ita 
history,  recognise  its  title  to  be  so  considered  T  What  harm  did  the  decision  in  Mr. 


242 

Harding's  case  do  anybody  1  Did  it  menace  the  safety  of  any  preacher  in  the  whole 
South?  Certainly  not  at  all.  The  position  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  is  some- 
what anomalous.  My  friend  says,  they  call  themselves  the  Breakwater  Conference. 
They  are  on  the  frontier.  Part  of  them  are  in  free  States  and  part  in  slave  States. 
Their  position  is  anomalous,  their  feelings  intense,  and  their  action  sharply  marked 
and  characteristic.  But  every  preacher  in  the  Southern  country,  who  stands  from 
off  the  frontier  line,  reposes  in  safety,  as  a  child  in  arms,  within  the  circle  of  his  own 
annual  conference.  Therefore,  to  get  up  an  alarm  and  pretend  that  any  man's  safety 
was  endangered,  from  here  to  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  or  the  Pacific  ocean,  in  the  least 
degree,  by  the  decision  of  a  local  conference  on  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  is  simply  an 
extravagance  of  falsehood.  For  the  practical  judgment  of  this  Court,  the  only  view 
of  it  would  be  to  treat  it  as  evidence  that  a  body  of  men  in  a  General  Conference — a 
Conference  of  which  I  have  had  the  honour  to  say  that  for  the  last  six,  ten,  or  twelve 
years  it  had  been  building  a  monument  of  fairness,  and  justice,  and  impartiality  in  its 
administration  at  every  step,  and  whose  monument  the  plaintiffs  have  united  with  the 
defendants  in  asserting  on  these  proofs — for  the  very  first  time  in  its  administrative 
life,  made  a  mistake  of  law  and  fact,  and  the  union  is  to  be  dissolved  on  that  account. 
God  have  mercy  on  and  take  care  of  all  unions,  the  larger  and  the  less,  if  such  rea- 
sons as  thdse  can  be  assigned  for  their  dissolution.  Nothing  human  can  stand,  no 
ordinance  of  man  can  stand  if  anything  can  be  made  out  on  such  ground  as  this. 

Did  this  declaration  of  the  majority,  when -they  came  to  look  their  brethren  in  the 
face,  observe  and  present  a  moral  and  absolute  silence  upon  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding  ? 
Very  well,  indeed,  was  it  when  the  Southern  Church  came  to  construct  their  Dis- 
cipline, and  prefix  this  manifesto  of  the  causes  of  separation  to  the  articles  of  their 
common  and  substantially  sound  faith, — very  well :  was  not  everyone  of  them  totally 
silent  on  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding! 

I  lay  that  aside,  and  submit  to  the  Court,  with  entire  and  perfect  confidence,  that 
we  stand  this  day  to  be  judged  alone  for  our  proceedings  in  the  matter  of  Bishop 
Andrew  ;  and  if  we  are  guilty  in  any  degree  of  having  contributed  to  the  dissolution 
of  this  union,  all  that  we  have  done — "  the  head  and  front  of  our  offending  hath  this 
extent,  no  more" — is  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  That  is  all. 
I  now  have  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  with  great  confidence,  in  some  little 
detail,  under  a  conscientious  conviction  that  I  have  a  duty  not  very  interesting,  and 
yet  important  to  perform,  to  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  in  the  mat- 
ter of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  the  grounds  upon  which  they  stand. 

The  first  question  is,  what  those  proceedings  were  ?  For  the  first  time  in  the  trial 
of  this  case,  I  am  going  to  bring  these  proceedings  altogether  under  one  view.  I 
have  not  yet  heard  them  read  altogether  by  anybody.  The  first  branch  of  them  is 
to  be  found  on  p.  92,  of  the  1  st  of  the  Proofs,  and  the  residue  of  them — quite  as  im- 
portant— on  p.  124.  I  believe  I  have  satisfactorily  evinced  to  the  Court,  that  the 
action  of  the  General  Conference  on  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  was  the  sole  ground 
on  which  this  secession  was  declared  and  achieved.  I  wish  to  know,  whether  such 
a  proceeding  affords  the  least  particle  of  justification  in  any  aspect  for  secession. 
On  p.  92  of  the  1st  of  the  Proofs,  the  Conference  resolved, — 

"  Whereas  the  Discipline  of  our  Church  forbids  the  doing  anything  calculated  to 
destroy  our  itinerant  general  superintendency,  and  whereas  Bishop  Andrew  has 
become  connected  with  slavery  by  marriage  and  otherwise,  and  this  act  having  drawn 
after  it  circumstances  which,  fn  the  estimation  of  the  General  Conference,  will 
greatly  embarrass  the  exercise  of  his  office  as  an  itinerant  general  superintendent,  if 
not  in  some  places  entirely  prevent  it ;  therefore, 

t  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this  General  Conference,  that  he  desist  from 
the  exercise  of  his  office,  so  long  as  this  impediment  remains." 

16* 


243 

I  proceed  to  p.  124,  and  find, — 

"  Resolved,  As  the  sense  of  this  Conference,  that  Bishop  Andrew's  name  stand  in 
the  Minutes,  Hymn  book,  and  Discipline,  as  formerly. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  rule  in  relation  to  the  support  of  a  bishop,  and  his  family, 
applies  to  Bishop  Andrew. 

•'  Resolved,  That  whether  in  any,  and  if  any,  in  what  work,  Bishop  Andrew  be 
employed,  is  to  be  determined  by  his  own  decision  and  action,  in  relation  to  the  pre- 
vious action  of  this  Conference  in  his  case." 

There  it  is  at  last  a  whole.  There  at  last  is  the  deliberate  and  reconciled  judg- 
ment of  an  embarrassed  body  acting  doubtless  in  a  case  of  great  perplexity.  The 
first  question  upon  this  proceeding  would  naturally  be,  whether  or  not  the  General 
Conference  had  the  constitutional  power  to  pass  any  such  votes  as  these.  To  decide 
that,  the  first  thing  to  be  done  is,  I  think,  to  ascertain  what  this  vote  is.  This  case 
of  the  separation  and  dissolution  of  this  Church,  opens  with  the  extraordinary  fact, 
about  which  there  is  no  controversy  at  all,  that  this  entire  South  has  gone  off  in  a 
body,  and  the  hopes  of  the  men  that  created  this  structure,  so  far  as  they  have  been 
disappointed,  were  disappointed  and  frustrated  upon  a  vote  as  to  the  meaning  of 
•which  the  South  cannot  agree,  as  to  the  meaning  of  which  the  North  cannot  agree 
among  themselves,  as  to  the  meaning  of  which  the  South  and  the  North  are  irrecon- 
cilably divided  among  themselves  to  this  day,  and  as  to  which  no  two  persons  that  I 
ever  had  an  opportunity  of  conversing  with  in  my  life,  were  agreed.  That  is  the  first 
great  fact  in  this  case.  They  have  gone  off  fln  a  vote  perfectly  unintelligible  to  any 
two  persons  to  whose  judgment  I  have  ever  submitted  it.  As  well  as  I  remember  it, 
the  old  doctrine  of  nullification  was  to  require  that  there  should  be  no  nullification  un- 
less, among  other  things,  the  unconstitutionality  of  an  act  should  be  palpable,  as  well 
as  very  violent.  It  must  be  a  palpable  unconstitutionality ;  and  the  first  great  difficulty 
here  is,  that  instead  of  the  act  being  a  palpable  unconstitutionality,  it  is  an  act  unintel- 
ligible, and  upon  which  there  remains  to  this  hour  an  irreconcilable  diversity  of  opinion 
among  all  men.  My  learned  friend,  who  preceded  me,  called  it  evasive  and  queer. 
If  it  is  evasive  and  queer,  it  would  hardly  seem  to  be  reason  enough  for  dividing  the 
Methodist  Church.  I  think  I  can  see  many  reasons  why  this  might  be  termed  am- 
biguous or  perplex,  but  not  why  it  should  be  designated  evasive  and  queer,  without 
any  objectionable  motive  upon  which  to  base  the  charge  of  evasiveness  and  queerness. 

The  Conference  was  embarrassed  how  to  act  on  the  case.  A  great  diversity  of 
opinions  had  to  be  brought  together,  and  to  be  reconciled.  The  case  was  perfectly 
old  in  point  of  principle,  although  novel  in  its  circumstances.  A  great  deal  of  feel- 
ing came  to  be  developed.  There  was  a  conscientious  conviction  that  something 
should  be  done.  Every  man  prayed  to  God  to  be  guided.  There  was  a  general 
conviction,  that  something  should  be  done,  which,  while  it  should  spare  the  feelings 
of  an  aged  bishop,  should  be  effectual,  and  should  satisfy  men  in  every  region  ;  so 
that  they  might  be  able,  under  the  embarrassment  of  the  crisis,  and  the  embarrass- 
ment of  the  moment,  to  put  some  record  on  the  files  of  this  Church,  and  yet  to  do  no 
act  of  unkindness  and  harshness.  Therefore,  their  action  was  not  marked  by  the 
sharp  and  well-defined  lines  of  tyranny.  Tyranny  and  headlong  fanaticism  make 
deeper  marks  than  these.  They  write  their  lines  sharp  and  keen,  and  there  is  no 
mistake  as  to  their  meaning.  It  is  because  they  were  neither  fanatics,  nor  abolition- 
ists, nor  tyrants,  but  Christian  men,  members  of  a  Christian  Church,  solicitous 
mainly  to  keep  the  Church  of  their  love  together,  yet  called  upon  to  keep  that 
Church  together  in  circumstances  of  great  and  extreme  character, — it  was  in  conse- 
quence of  these  embarrassments,  that  they  reconciled  themselves  to  this  proceeding. 
These  considerations  may  not  have  their  full  influence  on  those  who  do  not  have  to 


244 

act  on  such  a  crisis.  Yet,  how  any  man,  how  any  minority  of  men,  should  have 
found  in  it  a  casus  belli  of  such  transcendent  magnitude,  I  am  sure,  on  these  proofs, 
I  have  never  been  able  to  explain. 

What  is  the  meaning  of  the  vote  1  Upon  that  question  there  are  two  schools, 
consisting  of  a  million  of  people.  All  agree,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  vote  did  not 
design  to  remove,  nor  attempt  to  remove,  nor  suspend,  nor  attempt  to  suspend  Bishop 
Andrew  from  the  office  of  bishop.  I  pray  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  that  to  begin 
with.  This  vote  does  not  pretend  to  suspend  him  from  the  office  of  bishop  ;  it  does 
not  ask  him  to  suspend  himself ;  it  does  not  advise  him  to  do  so.  It  leaves  him  a 
bishop  as  before.  The  resolutions  to  which  I  last  called  attention  leave  his  name 
standing  affectionately,  not  derisively  as  my  learned  brother  seemed  to  suppose,  on 
the  record  of  the  Minutes,  the  Hymn  book,  and  Book  of  Discipline,  as  formerly.  They 
resolve  that  the  rule  for  the  support  of  a  bishop  and  his  family  still  applies  to  Bishop 
Andrew,  and  that  in  any,  if  in  any,  work  he  be  employed  should  be  determined  by  his 
own  decision,  having  reference  to  the  previous  action  of  the  Conference. 

So  then  it  is  not  true  that  they  remove  him  from  the  office  of  bishop,  or  suspend 
him  from  the  office  of  bishop,  or  advise  him  to  suspend  himself  from  the  office  of 
bishop  for  half  a  minute.  When  my  learned  brother  supposes  that  they  left  him  in 
such  a  position,  that  the  little  children  in  the  Methodist  Church,  every  time  they  sung 
their  hymns,  would  look  inquiringly  for  Bishop  Andrew,  and  thus  subject  him  to  a 
good  deal  of  pain  and  distress,  I  think  he  misconceives  the  matter  altogether,  and 
does  not  allow  his  own  heart  to  judge  for  him  in  regard  to  it.  They  left  his  name  in 
the  Hymn  book  for  this  reason  :  that  Hymn-book  is  one  of  the  muniments  and  records 
of  the  history  of  this  Church  ;  and  they  leave  his  name  in  it,  so  that  whoever  gathers 
the  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  this  record  of  its  biography,  shall 
find  that  he  was  a  bishop.  The  result  is,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  that  this  light 
temporary  cloud  which  came  over  his  reputation  shall  be  interred  with  his  bones,  but 
his  fame  and  the  name  he  bore  should  live  after  him.  That  is  what  is  to  be  under- 
stood by  this  vote  of  the  Conference  ;  not  that  he  should  be  laughed  at  by  little  chil- 
dren, but  that  he  should  be  honoured  by  generations  of  men  and  women  yet  to  come. 

What  are  the  two  schools  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  proceedings  against  Bishop  An- 
drew 1  One  class  holds,  that  these  proceedings  amount  to  a  mere  opinion  and  wish 
that  he  would,  durante  impedimenta,  suspend  the  exercise  of  the  duties  of  the  office 
of  a  bishop,  taking  into  consideration  local  excitement,  having  regard  to  the  recorded 
doctrines  of  this  Church  on  this  matter,  having  regard  to  the  ancient  and  general 
course  and  practice  of  the  Church  touching  the  connexion  of  the  episcopacy  with 
slaveholding.  This  class,  both  at  the  North  and  South,  to  this  day,  hold  these  pro- 
ceedings to  be  nothing  more  than  an  opinion,  that  durante  impedimenta  he  should 
retire  from  the  duties  of  his  office,  but  nevertheless  referring  it,  in  the  most  explicit 
terms,  to  his  own  judgment  and  conscience,  whether  he  would  do  so  or  not.  That 
opinion  is  now  held  by  many  at  the  South  ;  and  perhaps  the  Court  will  be  astonished 
when  I  bring  it  to  their  knowledge,  that  this  very  bishop  himself,  together  with  his 
associate  and  compeer,  Bishop  Soule,  construed  these  resolutions  as  referring  it  en- 
tirely to  his  own  judgment  and  discretion,  whether  he  would  perform  the  duties  of 
the  office  of  bishop  or  not,  leaving  him  as  much  a  bishop  as  ever.  Under  that  view 
of  the  meaning  of  that  proceeding,  his  associates  in  the  episcopacy  actually  did  pro- 
ceed to  assign  him  the  ordinary  episcopal  duty  in  the  summer  or  autumn  of  that  year. 
Your  Honours  will  find  the  proof  of  that  in  Book  No.  1,  p.  141,  and  Book  No.  2, 
p.  86, — both  documents,  I  believe,  written  by  the  very  able  and  energetic  Dr.  Bascom, 
to  whom  reference  has  been  made,  and  certainly  written  with  great  ability,  and  em- 
bodying in  all  its  strength  the  gravamen  of  the  complaints  of  the  South.  Thus  we 


245 

find  that  it  is  the  opinion  of  prominent  Southern  gentlemen,  that  the  entire  action  of 
the  General  Conference  on  this  subject  amounted  to  no  more  than  a  mere  wish, 
founded  upon  an  opinion,  that  he  would  abstain  on  account  of  a  temporary  impedi- 
ment, from  a  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the  office  of  bishop — and  not  from  the  office 
of  bishop — and  that  was  referred  so  absolutely  to  his  own  judgment  and  discretion, 
that,  upon  their  own  responsibility,  they  persuaded  him  to  go  to  work.  If  your  Honours 
will  be  kind  enough  to  look  at  Proofs  No.  1,  p.  104,  you  will  find  that  a  portion  of  the 
North  always  held  the  same  construction.  There  you  find  the  same  writer  of  the 
same  pretty  powerful  protest  against  this  proceeding,  which  was  read  the  other  day 
by  one  of  the  clients  of  my  learned  friend,  dealing  with  this  explanation  of  the  matter 
by  the  North.  He  controverts  it ;  but  recognises  that  this  interpretation  exists. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  regard  this  as  a  command.  What  sort  of  a  command 
that  may  be  regarded,  when  he  who  commands  notifies  to  him,  uno  et  eodem  flatu, 
that  he  is  expected  to  do  exactly  as  he  pleases,  that  no  penalty  is  to  be  attached,  in 
any  form  or  shape,  to  his  disregarding  the  command,  I  have  not  the  organs  to  com- 
prehend. I  therefore  respectfully  submit  it  was  nothing,  at  last,  but  a  mere  dispute 
about  words  between  the  two  schools  ;  and  that  it  is  nothing  but  a  strong  opinion, 
and  an  ardent,  urgent  wish,  under  the  circumstances,  by  the  Conference  to  the  bishop, 
that  he  would  yield  to  the  necessities  of  the  case  temporarily,  and  suspend  the  exer- 
cise of  the  duties  of  his  office,  with  the  distinct  notice,  that  in  what  work  he  should 
be  employed  was  to  be  determined  by  his  own  decision  and  action,  in  relation  to  the 
previous  action  of  this  Conference  in  his  case.  That  is  to  say  :  "  Bishop  Andrew,  we 
have  elected  you  to  the  office  of  bishop,  and  we  maintain  and  reverence  you  there  ; 
we  appreciate  a  certain  temporary  and  local  state  of  feeling  in  this  country,  which,  in 
our  judgment,  makes  it  expedient  that  you  should  yield  to  it,  and,  for  the  present, 
retire  from  the  duties  of  your  office ;  nevertheless,  you  are  bishop  still ;  you  can 
survey  a  wider  plain  than  we,  and  therefore  to  your  judgment  and  conscience  we 
commit  it  at  last,  and  if  you  think  your  duty  requires  it,  go  on  without  delay  and 
without  pause,  in  the  performance  of  every  one  of  your  duties  ;  we  have  not  another 
word  to  add."  For  that  vote  they  dissolve  this  union  !  One  might  very  well  ex- 
claim, "  Tant&ne  animis  ccdcstibus  irce, .'" 

I  was  upon  the  inquiry  as  to  whether  the  General  Conference  had  the  power  to 
pass  such  a  vote  as  this.  I  do  not  intend  to  stand  here  and  consume  time  in  discuss- 
ing that  point,  because  if  it  is  nothing  more  than  the  mere  expression  of  a  wish,  of 
an  opinion,  and  yet  referring  the  matter  entirely  to  the  judgment  and  discussion  of  the 
incumbent,  nobody  will  deny  the  constitutional  competence  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence to  pass  it.  I  made  some  preparation  earlier  in  this  case,  when  I  was  stronger 
and  had  anticipated  a  different  line  of  argument,  to  show  that  the  constitutional 
power  existed  ;  but  I  shall  have  so  much  to  say  on  the  constitutional  powers  of  the 
Conference  on  the  subject  )f  dividing  the  Church,  that  for  the  present  I  would 
spare  your  Honours  and  spare  myself.  Enough  for  the  present  to  say,  that  if  this  be 
interpreted,  as  I  think  the  Court  will  interpret  it,  to  be  only  an  expression  of  a  wish, 
of  an  opinion,  no  one  can  stand  here  to  deny  to  the  General  Conference  the  right  to 
pass  such  a  vote.  They  have  power  generally  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the 
government  of  the  Church.  The  bishops  are  directly  amenable  to  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  is  it  such  an  impoverished  body  that  it  has  not  power  to  ask  anybody  to 
do  something,  telling  him  at  the  same  time  that  he  may  or  he  may  not  do  it,  just  as 
he  pleases  1  It  is  not  worth  while  to  pursue  the  subject.  I  shall  take  that  for 
granted,  and  not  lose  time  on  it,  because  the  time  of  the  CourJ;  is  important,  and  my 
time,  as  I  had  proposed  it  to  myself,  presses  me  to  other  considerations.  I  take  it 
that  the  constitutional  power  is  undoubted. 


246 

The  next  question,  then,  is  whether,  although  the  constitutional  power  to  pass  such 
a  vote  as  this  is  undoubted,  there  is  here,  under  the  forms  of  law,  such  an  outrage 
upon  the  rights  of  the  South,  such  a  social  injustice  to  the  Methodists  of  that  section, 
as  to  warrant  the  action  which  the  South  proceeded  to  take  upon  it.  That  is  the 
result  of  the  inquiry — the  only  one  upon  which  I  will  further  trouble  the  Court  on 
this  point.  Heavily,  very  heavily,  I  submit  the  burden  is  upon  the  plaintiffs,  to  show 
that  under  the  forms  of  law  a  real  outrage  has  been  practised  upon  the  rights  of  the 
members  of  the  Church,  warranting  in  foro  conscientia  so  transcendent  and  irrevoc- 
able a  step  as  this.  The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the  plaintiffs.  I  respectfully 
submit  that  they  have  entirely  failed  to  meet  it. 

In  considering  that  question,  which  I  intend  to  do  somewhat  rapidly,  and  yet  un- 
der two  or  three  different  aspects,  I  am  willing  to  take  the  matter  here,  somewhat 
as  it  was  taken  by  the  very  powerful  Protest  of  the  minority  in  that  Conference  at  the 
time  the  Conference  did  the  act.  I  am  going  now  to  raise  and  meet  the  question, 
whether,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  touching  this  case  of  Bishop 
Andrew,  my  clients  were  attempting  to  introduce  any  substantial  innovation  upon 
the  course  and  practice  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  touching  the  connexion 
of  slaveholders  with  the  episcopacy.  That  is  the  question  I  mean  to  put — and  the 
question  of  blame  or  want  of  blame  in  relation  to  this  extremely  important  part  of  this 
great  transaction,  I  am  willing,  taking  the  thesis  propounded  by  that  Protest,  to 
meet  exactly  under  that  aspect,  which  party  was  it  that  was  attempting  in  that  Con- 
ference to  introduce  a  substantial  innovation  into  the  settled,  ancient,  and  general 
course  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  touching  the  matter  of  a  bishop  being 
the  holder  of  slaves  1  I  do  not  mean  to  admit,  however,  that  even  if  the  North  should 
be  declared  to  be  innovators,  it  would  afford  a  justification  for  the  action  of  the  plain- 
tiffs on  which  I  am  here  to  observe.  Still,  I  respectfully  submit  to  your  Honours, 
that  if  you  should  think  these  proceedings  hasty,  passionate,  and  irregular,  the  moral 
sentiments  of  men  and  the  intrinsic  justice  in  the  case  make  it  proper  enough  in  in- 
quiring for  the  first  fault  to  ask  for  the  innovator.  I  call  for  the  innovator  in  the 
General  Conference.  Who  was  it,  North  or  South,  that  day  that  was  attempting  to 
introduce  any  substantial  innovation  into  the  settled,  recognised,  and  existing  prac- 
tice of  that  Church  upon  the  subject  of  a  bishop  being  the  holder  of  slaves  1  I  re- 
spectfully submit  that  the  North  were  not  the  innovators.  I  mean  that  in  expressing 
an  opinion  or  a  wish  that  a  slaveholder  should  not  be  a  bishop,  that  a  bishop  should 
not  be  the  holder  of  slaves,  they  were  doing  nothing  before  God  but  simply  applying 
to  novel  facts  the  recorded  Discipline,  and  the  ancient,  recognised,  and  immemorial 
practice  of  that  Church  since  it  was  a  Church  upon  the  subject  of  electing  slaveholders 
to  the  office  of  bishop.  I  submit  that  what  they  did,  they  did  timorously,  delicately, 
under  every  embarrassment,  and  under  every  desire  to  consult  every  description  of 
feeling.  All  they  did,  in  its  whole  length  and  breadth,  was  to  apply  to  novel  facts 
the  recorded  Discipline  and  ancient  practice  of  that  Church  upon  the  subject  of  the 
connexion  of  the  episcopacy  with  slaveholding.  Let  us  see  if  that  be  not  so. 

What  was  the  subject  of  contention  in  the  Conference  of  1844  on  that  occasion  7 
It  was  contended  on  the  part  of  the  South  that  a  slaveholder  might  just  as  well  be  a 
bishop  as  any  other  man ;  and  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  recorded  Discipline  of 
the  Church,  nothing  in  local  opinion,  nothing  in  the  ancient  course  and  practice 
of  that  body,  that,  should  operate  even  in  point  of  expediency  to  prevent  a  slave- 
holder being  a  bishop,  just  as  well  as  another  man.  On  the  part  of  the  North,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  was  contended  that  having  regard  to  a  certain  local  opinion,  to  a 

Cat    and  overruling  question  of    expediency,  having    regard  to  the  established 
icipline  and  settled  practice  of  the  Church,  slaveholding  should  be  considered  a 


247 

great  practical  difficulty.  That  was  the  contention  between  the  parties  at  that  time. 
I  know  it  did  not  arise  in  that  general  and  abstract  form.  I  know  the  question  raised 
there  was,  what  should  be  done  with  a  person  elected  to  the  office  of  bishop  not 
holding  slaves  and  afterwards  becoming  a  slaveholder !  This  is  the  reason  why  the 
contention  assumed  such  an  embarrassing  character.  That  is  the  true  reason  why 
such  a  passionate  feeling  was  aroused.  The  South  could  not  bear  that  it  should 
be  said  a  slaveholder  should  not  be  a  bishop  ;  and  the  North  thought  that  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  case  it  ought  to  be  said  a  slaveholder  should  not  be  a  bishop. 
Who  were  the  innovators  on  that  contention  on  that  day  in  that  Church  1  As  I  said 
before,  this  is  not  a  question  of  right  or  wrong,  it  is  not  a  question  of  wise  or  unwise,  it 
is  not  a  question  of  freedom  or  slavery  ;  but  who  innovated  on  the  jural  society  as  be- 
tween the  parties  in  that  Church  1  Who  stood  on  the  old  code  1  Who  innovated  on 
that  code  1  That  is  the  question  to  examine.  I  would  therefore  like  to  extricate  and 
take  it  out  of  the  scope  of  mere  incidental  and  collateral  considerations,  take  it  away 
from  the  case  of  freedom  or  slavery,  take  it  away  from  the  case  of  fanaticism,  and  call 
it  concomitancies ;  and  to  take  it  and  try  it  as  the  jural  rights  of  these  parties  in  con- 
solidating the  Church,  and  through  the  Church  evangelizing  the  nation,  and  keep 
it  together. 

The  question  was  on  their  jural  rights  and  jural  duties,  according  to  the  law  of 
this  society,  lex  societatis.  Who  innovated  that  day  1  and  who  stood  on  the  old 
practice  of  the  society  1  By  that  let  the  defendants  be  tried.  I  apprehend — I  do 
not  know  what  causes  there  may  be  underneath,  I  do  not  know  how  to  explain  the 
state  of  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  South — if  I  read  correctly  the  nature  of  the  ties, 
the  fcedera  into  which  the  parties  relative  entered,  that  there  never  was  a  plainer 
question  presented  to  a  Court. 

The  first  great  fact  is  this  :  from  the  organization  of  this  Church  to  that  hour  no 
slaveholder  had  been  a  bishop.  During  a  period  of  sixty  years,  when  there  had  been 
nine  bishops  chosen,  no  slaveholder  had  ever  been  chosen  bishop.  Bishop  Andrew  was 
nominated  by  the  South,  and  elected  because  he  was  not  a  slaveholder.  No 
slaveholder  had  ever  been  elected  a  bishop  in  the  Methodist  Church.  And  why  not  T 
The  question  is  whether  we  are  innovators  because  we  object  to  a  slaveholder  wear- 
ing the  mitre.  Why  had  not  a  slaveholder  ever  been  elected  a  bishop  1  Clearly 
because  it  was  the  sense  of  the  Conferences,  it  was  the  recorded  practice  and  sense 
of  the  Church ;  it  had  been  notified  to  the  North,  notified  to  the  South,  constitution- 
ally promulgated ;  it  was  the  fundamental  law  of  the  Church,  that  a  bishop  was  to 
be  free  from  connexion  with  slavery.  Was  it  because  of  a  narrow  emulation  with 
the  South  1  We  gave  them  six  out  of  nine,  as  we  always  do.  It  was  not  the 
honours  that  we  sought.  We  gave  them  six  bishops  out  of  nine,  and  all  we  stipu- 
lated was  that  they  should  be  a  particular  kind  of  bishops.  And  what  complaint  can 
there  be  to  the  vote  of  1844,  declaring  the  sense  of  the  Conference,  that  the  Church 
forbade  them  doing  anything  calculated  to  destroy  the  itinerant  superintendency,  and 
that  a  bishop  could  not  hold  slaves,  and  that  a  slaveholder  could  not  be  a  bishop, 
when  the  sense  of  that  document  had  been  published  and  republished,  through  the 
unequivocal  intimations  of  nine  elections  and  sixty  years  1  Are  we  then  innovators  1 
Did  we  innovate  on  that  day  ] 

There  are  three  answers  to  this,  and  I  proceed  now  very  briefly  to  examine  the 
three  answers  that  can  be  made  to  it.  The  first  is,  that  this  very  refusal  theretofore 
to  elect  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  bishop  was  a  social  injustice,  and  therefore  was 
more  honoured  in  the  breach  than  in  the  observance.  The  Protest  and  the  proceed- 
ings at  Louisville  say  it  is  a  social  injustice.  The  second  answer  is,  that  the  case  of 
a  bishop  elected  because  he  did  not  hold  slaves,  and  afterwards  becoming  the  holder 


248 

of  slaves,  is  not  within  the  principle  of  originally  electing  nobody  not  free  from 
slavery.  The  third  and  principal  answer  is,  that  in  point  of  fact  this  very  question 
of  a  bishop  elected  because  he  did  not  hold  slaves,  was  a  question  that  had  been 
settled  by  a  compromise  of  the  parties  as  early  as  1804.  I  will  notice  these  argu- 
ments briefly,  and  in  their  order. 

In  the  first  place,  was  there  anything  like  a  social  injustice  in  the  practice  of  the 
Church  to  which  I  have  adverted — their  never  having  elected  a  slaveholder,  during 
such  a  long  period,  to  the  office  of  bishop,  and  having  adopted  and  carried  into  effect 
the  rule  that  a  slaveholder  should  not  be  elected  to  the  office  of  bishop1?  I  was 
pausing  to  turn  to  a  passage  in  the  Protest  of  the  Southern  delegates,  and  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  in  which  I  find  that  while  this  practice  of 
never  electing  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  bishop  is  recognised  as  a  matter-of-fact, 
it  is  still  regarded  as  being  in  itself  a  social  injustice.  I  have,  however,  no  occasion 
to  turn  to  these  passages.  The  Court  may  remember  hearing  them  read.  The  ques- 
tion whether  this  has  properly  been  termed  a  social  injustice,  I  submit  that  nothing 
is  so  unfounded.  By  a  social  injustice,  I  mean  an  injustice  ad  societatem,  any  injus- 
tice which  is  a  violation  of  the  jural  right  of  the  society,  of  the  Church  member.  So 
far  from  its  having  been  a  long  social  injustice  never  to  have  elected  for  sixty  years 
a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  bishop,  it  was  nothing  in  the  world  but  the  carrying  out 
by  the  General  Conference,  into  its  own  acts,  that  which  it  had  laid  down  in  the  Dis- 
cipline to  be  the  general  rule  for  the  whole  Church,  in  the  election  of  every  one  of 
the  subordinate  officers. 

The  general  rule  of  the  Methodist  Church,  from  the  time  it  was  instituted  to  that 
hour,  was,  that  slaveholders  ought  not  to  hold  office  in  the  Church.  Therefore,  I 
say,  this  is  not  a  social  injustice,  because  it  is  nothing  in  the  world  but  carrying  into 
effect,  in  this  case,  by  the  Conference  itself,  that  which  it  had  prescribed  in  its  Dis- 
cipline, and  promulgated  to  the  world,  from  its  institution  as  a  Church,  as  a  general 
rule  of  election  to  every  Methodist  office.  This  general  rule  was  always  enforced, 
with  a  single  exception  of  a  limited  local  character,  upon  which  I  shall  have  some- 
thing to  say  in  a  few  moments.  Still  the  general  rule  was,  that  a  slaveholder  ought 
not  to  bear  office  in  the  Church.  Such  had  been  the  general  rule  since  1784.  This 
general  rule  had  been  re-enacted  in  1796,  in  1800,  in  1804,  in  1812,  in  1816,  over,  and 
over,  and  over  again.  The  general  rule  of  the  Church,  as  prescribed  by  the  general 
lawgiver  of  the  Church — the  General  Conference — was,  that  slaveholders  were  not 
eligible,  with  a  single  limited  and  local  exception.  This  law  of  the  Church  had  been 
cotemporaneous  with  its  origin.  It  had  been  promulgated  over  and  over  again. 
Every  man  and  woman  in  the  Methodist  Church  from  the  South  had  entered  the 
Church  with  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  fact  that  this  was  its  fundamental  and  gene- 
ral law  of  election.  Therefore,  for  the  General  Conference,  in  any  one  instance,  from 
1784  down  to  this  instant,  to  have  elected  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  bishop,  would 
have  been  to  violate  in  its  own  action  what  it  had  unweariedly  and  studiously  pro- 
pounded and  reiterated  as  a  rule  of  action  for  every  Methodist  elective  body  from  the 
birth  of  the  Church  down  to  that  day.  If  it  is  a  social  injustice  for  a  corporation  to 
execute  its  own  fundamental  law,  then  by  analogy  this  is  a  social  injustice.  Really, 
however,  it  is  just  as  much  an  abuse  of  terms  to  complain  of  it  as  a  social  injustice 
on  the  part  of  the  South,  as  it  would  be  for  a  man  to  buy  the  stock  of  a  railroad  cor- 
poration, and  then  complain  because  they  would  not  go  into  the  manufacture  of 
cotton ;  or  for  a  young  man  to  pass  himself  through  one  of  the  colleges  in  the  univer- 
sity of  Cambridge,  England,  and  at  the  end  complain  because,  being  a  Protestant 
dissenter — say  a  Presbyterian — he  could  not  get  a  scholarship.  In  hate  feeders,  vcmsti, 
is  the  answer ;  you  have  entered  the  Church  and  have  been  its  strength  and  its  orna- 


249 

ment — would  to  God  you  would  again  contribute  to  her  glory — you  have  been  in  it 
for  sixty  years,  knowing  perfectly  well  that,  wise  or  unwise,  liberal  or  illiberal,  ill- 
calculated  or  well-calculated  to  maintain  the  Church  in  the  South,  this  was  its  rule 
in  relation  to  slavery  ;  you  knew  it  was  a  rule  of  the  Methodist  Church  that  slave- 
holders ought  not  to  hold  office  in  the  Church  ;  and  now  for  you  to  turn  round  and 
say  it  is  a  "  social  injustice" — I  will  leave  it  to  the  Court  to  say  whether  it  is  well 
warranted  in  point  of  justice  between  these  parties. 

I  had  intended  to  read  to  your  Honours,  from  the  Proofs,  to  show  the  legislative 
action  of  this  Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery.  But  the  proofs  are  all  before  the 
Court,  and  I  will  not  trouble  the  Bench  with  what  might  be  very  wearisome.  I  have 
this  to  say,  however :  it  is  the  recorded  consistent  opinion  of  the  Church,  from  1784 
to  1844,  as  the  general  law  of  election,  that  slaveholders  ought  not  to  have  office 
in  the  Church,  with  one  exception,  of  which  I  shall  have  a  great  deal  to  say  in  a 
moment.  Your  Honours  will  find  that  everywhere  in  the  evidence.  You  will  find  it 
particularly  in  the  address  of  the  bishops  to  the  Conference  of  1840,  and  in  the 
report  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Bascom  on  the  Westmoreland  petition.  It  is  there  recog- 
nised as  the  general  law  of  the  Church  upon  the  subject  of  slaveholders'  eligibility  to 
office  in  the  Church.  I  therefore  feel  that  I  am  well  warranted  in  putting  that  as 
the  general  rule,  recognising  particularly  the  exception  of  which  they  speak,  and 
pledging  myself  to  discuss  that  at  even  greater  length  than  even  the  learned  counsel 
on  the  other  side  would  wish  me  to  discuss  it. 

I  submit,  then,  so  far  as  the  substance  of  the  contention  in  1844  goes  ;  so  far  as  the 
contention  on  the  part  of  the  North,  that  there  were  grave,  practical  objections  to  the 
connexion  of  slaveholding  with  the  episcopacy,  is  concerned,  the  North  were  no  inno- 
vators at  all.  I  submit  they  were  standing  on  the  old  practice  of  the  Church,  and  only 
executing  a  recorded  act,  communicated  to  the  South,  and  under  which  everybody 
from  the  South  had  joined  the  Church.  So  then  there  was  no  social  injustice  in  our 
having  declined  and  refused  to  elect  a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  bishop  from  the 
birth  of  the  Church. 

The  next  question,  and  it  is  briefly  disposed  of,  is  whether  in  expressing  the  opinion 
m  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  which  is  the  subject  of  consideration — that  is  to  say,  the 
opinion  that  a  person  who  was  elected  because  he  did  not  hold  slaves,  becoming  a 
slaveholder  afterwards  ought  not  any  longer  durantc  impedimenta  to  exercise  the 
duties  of  the  office  of  bishop — they  were  guilty  of  any  innovation.  Undoubtedly  this 
was  the  case  of  the  application  of  old  principles  to  new  facts.  That,  certainly,  made 
a  slight  degree  of  embarrassment.  I  agree  that  the  case  had  never  arisen  before  of  a 
person  elected  as  not  being  a  slaveholder,  becoming  afterwards  the  holder  of  slaves. 
That  case  had  never  arisen  before,  and  I  might  even  introduce  it  as  the  first  count  in 
my  indictment  of  innovation  against  the  South,  that  on  this  occasion  they  would  not 
allow  Bishop  Andrew  to  resign,  and  thus  relieve  the  embarrassment  of  the  Confer- 
ence. Before  I  have  done,  I  shall  point  to  the  proof  of  it  on  the  record.  I  put  this 
as  a  proof  of  innovation  on  the  part  of  the  South,  that  they  thus  bring  before  the 
Conference,  and  press  upon  the  Conference,  and  stood  before  the  Conference  upon 
the  perilous  innovation  of  the  connexion  of  the  episcopacy  with  the  holding  of  slaves. 
The  question  is,  whether  on  that  occasion  the  North  met  these  new  facts  with  old 
principles  or  new  principles.  I  submit  that  the  Church  could  not,  with  any  consis- 
tency whatever,  with  its  settled  practice  of  more  than  half  a  century,  and  with  the 
principles  on  which  that  practice  had  been  established,  have  done  anything  but  what  it 
did,  touching  this  new  phase  of  the  connexion  of  the  mitre  with  the  holding  of  slaves. 
What  were  the  great  principles  which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  that  practice,  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  recorded  discipline  of  the  Church  1  I  understand  them  to  be  :  first,  that 


250 

by  refusing  the  bishopric  to  a  slaveholder,  the  evil  of  slavery  is  the  more  likely  to  be 
extirpated,  which  all  the  way  down  in  the  Discipline  is  one  of  the  great  moral  efforts 
which  this  Church  proposes  to  itself.  The  other  reason  was,  that  in  consequence  of 
excited  local  opinions  the  office  of  a  bishop  was  rendered  less  universally  useful  than 
it  would  otherwise  be.  It  is,  as  I  understand,  on  these  two  general  principles  that 
the  practice  was  adopted  of  never  electing  a  slaveholder  to  the  episcopal  office.  This 
never  was  made  much  of  a  point  in  the  Conference  ;  and  I  will  therefore  only  say  in 
general,  that  it  is  perfectly  plain  if,  under  such  principles  as  these,  it  had  become  the 
judicial  law  of  the  society,  promulgated  and  known  as  such,  that  the  candidate  could 
not  hold  slaves,  it  was  senseless  and  absurd  to  suppose  the  incumbent  could  hold 
slaves.  If  under  this  practice  ordinary  or  less  brilliant  abilities  were  sometimes 
elected  to  the  office  of  bishop,  because  they  were  adorned  by  this  great  qualification, 
could  it  be  understood  by  anybody  that  the  successful  candidate,  the  moment  he  got 
the  office,  could  divest  himself  of  the  very  qualification  on  account  of  which  he  was 
chosen  1  I  submit,  therefore,  without  taking  further  tune  on  the  point,  that  this  was 
only  an  application  of  settled  principles  to  novel  facts  ;  and,  indeed,  as  I  have  said, 
that  was  not  much  the  subject  of  contention  in  the  Conference. 

I  come  now,  however,  and  I  have  to  solicit  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  it  for  a 
very  few  moments,  to  the  main  ground  upon  which  the  South  in  the  Conference 
did,  and  here  do  contend  that  the  proceedings  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  were  an 
injustice  to  them  as  members  of  the  Church ;  and  I  submit  that  if  they  make  out  in 
point  of  legal  interpretation  one  of  the  rules  in  the  Discipline — a  point  upon  which  I 
am  now  about  to  comment — as  inoperative,  then  they  fix  on  the  North  the  charge  of 
innovation  to  that  extent.  If  they  fail  to  make  that  out,  then  they  fail  on  that 
charge  in  its  full  length  and  breadth.  That  ground  is  this  :  the  Court  must  have  no- 
ticed the  other  day,  when  the  Protest  was  read  in  its  hearing,  that  the  whole  burden 
of  it,  from  beginning  to  end,  was  exactly  and  merely  this — that  it  was  too  late  for 
the  North,  in  1844,  to  contend  that  a  person  elected  to  the  office  of  bishop  because 
he  did  not  hold  slaves,  afterwards  becoming  the  holder  of  slaves,  should  not  hold 
office,  because,  by  a  vote  passed  in  1800,  and  qualified  or  interpreted  in  1804  or 
1812,  the  Church  had,  by  a  compromise,  provided  for  that  very  case.  That  is  the 
ground  taken  in  the  Protest.  It  is  not  argued  with  the  ability  which  I  am  sure  such 
a  pen  as  that  of  the  writers  of  the  Protest  could  have  argued  it,  if  they  had  appre- 
ciated as  I  appreciate  the  difficulties  attending  that  proposition  on  the  part  of  the 
South.  But  this  is  taken  for  granted  and  made  the  foundation  of  a  powerful,  nay, 
upon  its  principles,  an  irresistible  appeal  to  the  conscience  and  reason  of  the 
Northren  members  of  that  Conference ;  and  the  ground  there  taken  was,  that  a  certain 
rule  in  this  Discipline,  which  says  every  travelling  preacher  who  becomes  a  slave- 
holder, shall  be  therefore  suspended  from  his  office,  provided  he  live  in  a  State  in 
which  emancipation  is  practicable,  means  bishops  as  well  as  travelling  preachers ; 
and,  therefore,  that  the  casus  is  exactly  provided  for.  If  that  be  so,  I  admit  that  the 
North  were  innovators  on  that  day ;  for  though  they  did  not  turn  Bishop  Andrew  out  of 
the  office  of  bishop,  although  they  did  not  suspend  him  from  the  office  of  bishop, 
although  they  only  went  so  far  as  to  express  a  wish  that  he  should  temporarily  desist, 
yet  i:  that  case  had  been  provided  for  beforehand,  if  the  rule  to  which  I  have  referred, 
by  any  just  interpretation  of  it,  cover  the  bishop  as  well  as  the  travelling  preacher, 
the  North  were  wrong  and  the  South  were  right,  to  the  extent  of  a  formal  innova- 
tion— not  that  it  would  justify  these  transcendent  consequences.  On  that  point  I 
respectfully  meet  the  able  argument  of  the  opening  counsel  for  the  plaintiff.  On 
that  point  I  am  respectfully,  in  advance,  to  endeavour  to  encounter  briefly  the  argu- 
ment of  the  counsel,  who  is  to  close  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff.  I  submit  that  if  a 


251 

man's  life  stood  in  it,  and  not  merely  the  life  of  the  Church,  and  through  that,  per- 
haps, the  life  of  a  more  dear  and  comprehensive  Union,  it  is  perfectly  clear  as  a  pro- 
position of  interpretation  that  the  South  is  totally  in  the  wrong,  and  that  this  Protest 
was  ill  calculated,  as  it  was  read,  and  always  must  be  read  by  whoever  reads  it,  to 
make  an  impression  as  it  proceeds  upon  a  mere  assumption  without  foundation. 

Let  us  see  now  that  we  understand  exactly  what  was  adopted  in  Bishop  Andrew's 
case.  It  turns  on  the  meaning  of  this  provision,  (p.  22  of  Proofs  No.  1,) — 

"  When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any 
means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it 
be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives." 

The  South  contended  that  "  any  travelling  preacher,"  in  the  clause,  includes 
bishops.  The  North  contended  that  it  does  not  include  bishops  at  all,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  by  the  force  of  the  terms,  by  force  of  the  language,  and  on  grand  reasons 
discriminating  in  the  practice  of  that  Church  between  the  travelling  preacher  and  the 
bishop,  this  indulgence  did  not  extend  to  the  case  of  a  bishop,  and  was  not  intended  to 
embrace  it ;  and  therefore  whenever  the  casus  did  arise  of  a  bishop  becoming  the 
owner  of  slaves  ex  post  facto,  in  whatever  State  he  lived,  it  was  to  be  judged  of  only 
by  the  sense,  and  judgment,  and  conscience  of  the  Conference  itself.  The  question 
then  is,  whether  the  term  "  travelling  preacher  "  in  this  law  of  1800,  upon  the  evi- 
dence before  the  Court,  appears  judicially  to  embrace  the  case  of  a  bishop.  I  deny 
that  there  is  a  solitary  particle  of  evidence  for  it.  How  is  this  to  be  tried  1  And  by 
what  kind  of  evidence  is  it  to  be  established  1  The  Court  will  notice,  that  in  the 
Protest  to  which  I  have  occasionally  made  references,  it  is  stated  over  and  over  again, 
as  in  some  measure  a  matter  of  fact  within  the  knowledge  of  the  writer,  and  the 
knowledge  and  belief  of  a  portion  of  the  protesting  minority,  that  that  law  of  1800, 
as  it  stands  written,  had  come  to  be,  in  1808  or  1816,  construed  to  embrace  the  case 
of  a  bishop.  There  are  many  passages  in  that  document  wherein  this  is  assumed  as 
matter  of  fact.  The  difficulty  of  that  argument  is,  that  it  is  met  on  the  other  side  by 
the  most  categorical  and  comprehensive  denial  of  the  fact.  I  will  now  read  from  the 
Reply  of  the  majority  of  the  Conference,  so  much  as  to  show  the  Court  that  we  can- 
not rely  for  the  interpretation  of  this  article,  in  the  least  degree,  upon  the  counter 
assertions  as  to  the  matter  of  fact.  If  your  Honours  will  look^t  pp.  116, 117,  you 
will  see  how  flatly  and  decisively,  as  a  matter  of  fact  and  memory,  this  assertion  of 
the  Protest  is  contradicted : — 

"  If  additional  proof  of  the  truth  of  this  proposition  were  needed,  it  might  be 
adduced  in  the  fact,  that  the  section  which  the  Protest  represents  to  have  been  settled 
in  1804,  was  not  only  altered  at  the  General  Conference  or  Convention  of  1808,  but 
also  at  the  delegated  General  Conferences  of  1812,  1816,  1820,  and  1824.  And 
although  the  Protest  speaks  of  it  as  '  usually  known '  by  the  name  of  '  the  Com- 
promise Act,'  the  greater  part  of  this  General  Conference  have  never  heard  either 
that  appellation  or  that  character  ascribed  to  it  until  the  present  occasion." 

I  will  not  read  more ;  but  if  the  Court  will  examine  both  documents,  the  Protest 
and  the  Reply,  they  will  find,  that  while  the  protestants  assert  that  this  was  really 
settled  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  allege  it  within  their  knowledge  to  have  been  settled 
as  a  matter  of  compromise,  all  that  source  of  light  is  withdrawn  by  the  equally 
solemn  asseveration  to  the  contrary.  We  are  there  fore  brought  back  to  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  interpretation.  That  question  is,  whether  the  term  "travelling  preacher,"  in 
the  rule  of  1800,  upon  tho  lights  before  this  Court,  includes  a  bishop  or  not.  Does 
that  mean  anything  but  travelling  preachers  proper  1 

The  first  difficulty  in  the  point  of  interpretation  is,  that  this  rule  does  not  say  any- 


252 

thing  about  bishop.  It  is,  "  when  any  travelling  preacher,"  &c.  It  says  nothing 
about  bishops  to  nomine.  It  does  not  say,  "  when  any  travelling  preacher  or  bishop  ;" 
it  says  nothing  about  bishops.  Proceeding  to  investigate  the  problem  of  interpreta- 
tion, the  first  great  fact  which  stares  us  in  the  face  is,  that  by  the  settled  usus 
loquendi  of  this  Church,  we  know  that,  in  its  Discipline,  "travelling  preachers  "  is  a 
term  that  does  not  include  bishops.  Bishops  are  not  included  in  the  rule,  in  terms  ; 
and  by  the  usus  loquendi  of  this  Church,  which  construes  its  language,  we  know  that 
"  travelling  preacher  "  does  not  mean  a  bishop.  To  make  that  clear,  let  me  turn 
your  Honours  to  page  29  of  Proofs  No.  1,  to  arrive  at  the  meaning  of  the  term  "  tra- 
velling preachers,"  in  the  written  language  of  this  Church  : — 

"  1.  The  annual  allowance  of  the  married  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  super- 
annuated preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  $200,  and  their  travelling  expenses. 

"  2.  The  annual  allowance  of  the  unmarried  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  super- 
annuated preachers  and  bishops,  shall  be  $100,  and  their  travelling  expenses. 

"3.  Each  child  of  a  travelling  preacher  or  bishop  shall  be  allowed  $16  an- 
nually, &c. 

"  4.  The  annual  allowance  of  the  widows  of  travelling,  superannuated,  worn-out, 
and  supernumerary  preachers,  and  the  bishops,  shall  be  $100. 

"  5.  The  orphans  of  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  worn-out  preachers,  and  the 
bishops,  shall  be  allowed  by  the  annual  conferences  the  same  sums  respectively  which 
are  allowed  to  the  children  of  living  preachers." 

So  then,  by  the  usus  loquendi  of  this  Church,  in  its  Discipline,  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between  travelling  preachers  and  bishops — travelling  preachers  do  not  mean 
bishops.  There  it  is  prima  facie.  They  have  not  a  tittle  of  evidence  that  the  word 
"  bishop,"  not  occurring  in  the  rule,  the  law  of  speech  of  the  Church  does  not  exclude 
bishops. 

Then  I  inquire  how  they  can  be  included,  and  I  look  in  vain  for  a  scintilla  of  proof 
to  support  the  position  of  these  Southern  gentlemen.  They  say  this  was  known  to 
"  all  mankind,"  and  yet  three-fourths  of  all  mankind  reply  that  they  never  heard  of  it. 
That  mode  of  proof  is  excluded  ;  dogmatism  is  excluded  ;  and  secession  is  excluded ; 
and  these  parties  are  brought  back  to  the  determination  of  this  great  question  to  their 
jural  rights,  to  the  meaning  of  the  record  ;  the  meaning  of  the  record  is  to  be  settled 
by  a  settled  law  of  interpretation,  and  prima  facie  that  law  of  interpretation  is 
entirely  against  thciu. 

I  present  now  a  third  difficulty  on  the  point  of  the  interpretation  of  this  clause,  to 
show  that  the  words  here  are  to  be  taken  as  they  are  elsewhere  taken  in  the  Dis- 
cipline. I  beg  your  Honours  to  take  notice  of  one  thing,  which,  I  think,  has  escaped 
the  notice  of  the  reverend  disputants  on  both  sides.  I  am  instructed,  that  in  this 
clause  of  the  Discipline,  the  lawgiver  speaking  is  the  General  Conference,  and  that 
lawgiver  is  speaking  to  the  annual  conferences  for  their  guidance  and  direction.  He 
is  not  speaking  to  himself,  and  for  himself,  but  to  them,  and  for  them.  Of  course,  as 
the  annual  conferences,  to  whom  he  is  laying  down  the  law,  have  nothing  in  the  world 
to  do  with  bishops,  he  is  not  laying  down  any  law  as  to  the  choice  of  bishops,  but  he 
is  laying  down  the  law  to  them  for  the  election  of  the  subordinate  officers  which  the 
system  of  the  Church  commits  to  their  direction.  If  I  am  right  in  my  position,  that 
the  General  Conference  is  here  speaking  in  the  capacity  of  a  lawgiver  to  the  annual 
conferences,  and  not  proclaiming  a  mere  dogma  or  rule  for  its  own  guidance,  nothing 
in  the  world  is  more  clear,  than  that  they  would  not  be  guilty  of  the  absurdity  of 
prescribing  a  rule  of  election  to  the  annual  conferences,  that  should  have  application 
to  an  officer  whom  the  annual  conferences  did  not  choose,  and  with  whom  they  had 
nothing  to  do.  I  accordingly  propound  it  and  undertake  to  verify  it,  and  I  say  the 
fact  will  turn  out  to  be,  that  this  whole  series  of  legislation,  from  1792  to  1844,  was 


nothing  but  a  series  of  prescripts  sent  out  by  the  superintending  governor  for  the  direc 
tion  of  the  inferior  annual  bodies.  The  superintending  body  would  of  course  do  this 
in  advance.  Why  should  the  General  Conference  lay  down  a  law  for  its  own  action  1 
It  met  every  four  years.  They  knew  when  they  came  to  meet,  at  the  expiration  of 
the  next  Olympiad,  as  it  has  been  happily  called,  they  would  elect  a  bishop  under  the 
general  law.  Therefore  there  was  no  need  of  putting  a  rule  for  their  own  guidance 
on  the  record.  They  knew  also,  that  whatever  rule  they  might  put  on  the  record, 
could  be  changed  the  moment  they  came  to  choose.  Therefore,  I  say,  it  was  need- 
less uid  useless  for  them  to  lay  down  a  general  rule  for  their  own  action.  On  the 
contrary,  as  they  met  every  four  years,  and  various  annual  conferences  were  to  be 
held  during  these  four  years,  and  as  it  was  needful  that,  during  that  whole  period,  the 
forecast  of  the  General  Conference  should,  by  its  law,  be  extended  in  advance  over 
them,  they  made  the  law.  And  the  Court  will  see,  by  looking  a  little  at  the  language 
of  one  or  two  of  these  provisions,  how  exactly  they  all  take  the  language  of  a  pre- 
script by  the  General  Conferences  to  the  annual  conferences.  To  show  this,  I  will 
read  from  p.  21  of  Proofs  No.  1  : — 

"  Quest.  What  regulations  shall  be  made  for  the  extirpation  of  the  crying  evil  of 
African  slavery  1 

"Ans.  1.  We  declare  that  we  are  more  than  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of 
the  African  slavery  which  still  exists  in  these  United  States,  and  do  most  earnestly 
recommend  to  the  yearly  conferences,  quarterly  meetings,  and  to  those  who  have  the 
oversight  of  districts  and  circuits,  to  be  exceedingly  cautious  what  persons  they 
admit  to  official  stations  in  our  Church ;  and  in  the  case  of  future  admission  to 
official  stations,  to  require  such  security  of  those  who  hold  slaves,  for  the  emancipa- 
tion of  them,  immediately  or  gradually,  as  the  laws  of  the  States  respectively,  and 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  will  admit ;  and  we  do  fully  authorize  all  the  yearly 
conferences  to  make  whatever  regulations  they  judge  proper,  in  the  present  case, 
respecting  the  admission  of  persons  to  official  stations  in  our  Church." 

Again,  on  p.  22,  you  find  that  the  annual  conferences  were  directed  to  draw  up 
addresses  to  the  legislatures  of  the  States  for  the  gradual  emancipation  of  slaves  ; 
and  on  the  next  page  that  proper  committees  should  be  appointed  by  the  annual  con- 
ferences for  conducting  business,  and  so  on.  Then  I  submit  that  this  is  in  the  form 
of  a  direction  to  the  annual  conferences,  which  have  nothing  at  all  to  do  with  the 
bishops,  not  to  press  beyond  its  strength  anything  on  the  learning  of  this  Bench. 

I  submit  in  the  next  place  that  a  very  familiar  rule  of  interpretation  at  common 
law,  the  rule  as  it  is  commonly  called  of  denying  legislation,  et  ad  ea  qua  frequentius 
accidunt  jura  adaptantur,  applies  directly  to  the  case  before  the  Court  That  rule,  as 
stated  in  Dwarris,  p.  730,  is  this :  that  where  the  words  of  the  law  imply  that  they  may 
be  satisfied  by  applying  them  to  the  common  case,  they  shall  not  be  extended  by  inter- 
pretation to  the  rarer  case.  The  words  "  travelling  preachers"  may  be  satisfied  by 
the  ordinary  and  common  case,  and  therefore  they  ought  not  to  be  extended  to  the 
rarer  case.  The  common  case  in  this  instance,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  lawgiver, 
was  the  ordinary  travelling  preachers  ;  they  are  elected  many  times  by  the  annual 
conferences.  The  common  case,  then,  was  the  election  of  the  travelling  preachers  by 
the  annual  conferences.  The  rarest  case  was  the  election  of  bishops  by  the  General 
Conference,  which  met  once  in  four  years.  Could  they  adopt  this  rule  to  apply  to 
them  in  this  rare  case  when  they  might  change  it,  or  the  progress  of  time  might 
change,  like  a  passing  cloud,  before  the  time  of  administering  it  came  1 

Leaving  that  point,  I  have  to  entreat  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  another  consider- 
ation of  very  great  and  decisive  urgency  in  my  mind  ;  and  that  is,  that  there  are 
reasons  of  a  most  palpable  and  weighty  character  why  a  distinction  should  have  been 


254 

made  in  1800  and  1804,  and  ever  since  in  the  Church,  between  the  travelling  preach- 
er proper  and  the  bishop,  as  to  allowing  a  dispensation  to  one  or  the  other  from  the 
consequences  of  holding  slaves.  I  mean  to  say  that  so  different  are  the  official  life 
and  official  duties  of  a  travelling  preacher  proper,  from  those  of  a  bishop  proper,  that 
the  former  might  very  well  be  allowed  an  indulgence,  which  the  latter  could  not  be 
allowed :  and  therefore  this  legislation,  so  far  as  it  is  an  element  of  dispensation  or 
injustice,  might  very  well  apply  to  the  travelling  preacher,  and  by  no  means  to  the 
bishop  proper.  In  order  to  enable  you  to  appreciate  that  argument,  I  ought  perhaps 
to  say  in  advance,  that  this  legislation,  even  so  far  as  travelling  preachers  are  con- 
cerned, is  legislation  in  extirpation  of  slavery ;  and  it  therefore  proceeds  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  general  rule  that  slaveholding  disqualifies.  That  is  the  general  rule 
on  the  face  of  the  written  Discipline.  A  particular  exception  is  allowed  under 
special  circumstances.  Disqualification  is  the  rule,  dispensation  the  exception ; 
disqualification  the  rule,  indulgence  the  exception ;  disqualification  is  the  general 
rule,  according  to  the  express  terms  of  the  Discipline,  in  the  case  of  every  officer 
below  the  grade  of  bishop ;  and  disqualification  was  the  general  rule  in  the  case  of  a 
bishop,  not  by  the  express  terms  of  the  Discipline,  but  by  the  universal  action  of  the 
Church.  Therefore,  my  rule  of  interpretation  is,  that  in  inquiring  whether  or  not 
"  travelling  preachers"  for  the  purpose  of  indulgence,  embraces  bishops,  your 
Honours  will  give  the  utmost  expansion  and  energy  to  the  general  rule,  and  compress 
the  exception  within  the  narrowest  possible  limits.  That  is  a  universal  and  familiar 
rule  of  interpretation. 

I  submit  now,  that  there  are  two  reasons  at  once  obvious  and  recognised,  and  en- 
tirely decisive,  why  this  Court  may  perfectly  well  say,  that  the  General  Conference 
of  1800  should  have  been  willing  and  felt  obliged  to  extend  an  indulgence  to  the 
travelling  preacher,  which  it  could  not  extend  to  a  bishop,  but  at  the  hazard  of  all 
a  bishop  is  created  to  do.  In  the  first  place,  there  were  reasons  why  a  travelling 
preacher  should  be  indulged,  which  did  not  apply  to  a  bishop.  The  home  of  a  Metho- 
dist clergyman  is  his  assigned  field  of  labour.  The  home  of  every  Methodist  preacher 
under  the  degree-  of  a  bishop  is  in  his  assigned  field  of  labour,  and  his  assigned  field 
of  labour  is  commonly  a  large  circuit,  but  narrow,  compared  with  the  imperial  sweep 
over  which  the  episcopal  duties  carry  the  bishop.  There  the  travelling  preacher 
must  live,  and  there  he  must  labour  ;  and  therefore,  if  he  has  slaves  and  cannot  eman- 
cipate them  there,  it  is  safe  and  proper  that  he  should  labour  without  emancipating 
them,  or  else  he  cannot  labour  at  all.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the  field  of  a  bishop's 
labour  in  the  Methodist  Church,  is  our  universal  united  America.  His  field  of  labour, 
under  the  system  of  this  Church,  is  the  whole  of  America,  and  therefore  he  may  live 
anywhere  in  America.  I  am  submitting  to  your  Honours  not  a  harangue  and  decla- 
mation on  the  subject  of  the  episcopacy,  but  I  hope  and  trust  a  sound  interpretative 
argument.  Therefore,  I  say,  the  General  Conferences  of  1800  and  1816  might  very 
well  have  supposed  that  a  bishop  would  be  willing  to  live  anywhere,  throughout  his 
vast  and  expanding  diocese,  that  he  would  be  willing  and  only  too  happy  to  be  allowed 
to  live  where  he  could  best  discharge  the  duties  of  that  great  office,  where  he  could 
best  depurate,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  and  unclothe  himself  of  all  influence  tending 
in  the  least  degree  to  mar  the  whole  measure  of  his  usefulness,  where  he  could  best  go 
and  put  on  a  virtue  that  should  approve  itself  to  more  tban  a  local  standard,  where  he 
could  best  attend  to  the  whole  beauty  and  protection  of  that  holiness  which  should 
best  recommend  him  to  the  universal  sentiments  and  scruples  of  the  whole  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  Why,  then,  might  not  the  General  Conference  have  very  well 
drawn  a  line  of  distinction  on  this  ground  between  him  and  the  travelling  preacher? 
Why  might  they  not  very  well  have  deemed,  that  in  taking  upon  himself  the  discharge 


of  the  new  office  he  would  relieve  himself  of  all  embarrassments  ?  "Why  might  they  : 
not  have  done  him  the  honour,  in  advance,  of  supposing  that  in  becoming  a  bishop  he 
would  prefer  to  stand  on  the  general  rule,  instead  of  sheltering  himself  under  a  narrow 
dispensation  1  Why  might  they  not  have  presumed  on  the  part  of  a  bishop,  as  discri- 
minated from  the  narrower  and  humbler  labours  of  the  travelling  preacher,  that  for  the 
sake  of  holding  such  an  office  as  that,  for  the  sake  of  being  a  successor  of  the  Asburys 
and  the  Wesleys  ;  for  the  sake  of  being  a  successor  of  those  older,  and  better,  and 
more  famous  men ;  for  the  sake  of  the  privilege  under  Almighty  God  of  bearing  the 
glad  tidings,  the  venerable  presence  and  admonitions,  and  authoritative  instructions, 
and  satisfying  consolations  of  this  Church  everywhere,  from  North  to  South,  and 
from  East  to  West,  from  Britain  to  Gaul,  from  Marseilles  to  Rome,  from  Rome  to 
Antioch,  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem, — that  for  the  sake  of  these,  he  would  be  only  too 
glad,  I  will  not  say  to  forego  the  luxury  of  slaveholding,  for  that  might  involve  a 
sarcasm,  which  I  do  not  mean,  but,  to  break  away  from  such  an  impediment  as  slave- 
holding,  that  he  would  choose  rather  to  proceed  instantly  to  place  himself  where  he 
might  soonest  and  most  effectually  rid  himself  of  all  participation  in  what  would 
make  him  objectionable  to  any  portion  of  his  flock  ;  and  that  if  he  should  prefer  the 
other  alternative,  to*  continue  to  hold  slaves,  he  should  see  no  hardship  in  allowing 
the  mitre  to  pass  to  another  brow  1  Can  any  man,  on  this  question  of  interpretation, 
stand  here  and  tell  me,  that  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  1800  and  1816  might 
not,  on  that  exact  discrimination,  have  said,  "  The  travelling  preacher  needs  a  dis- 
pensation, and  shall  have  it ;  but  the  bishop  will  never  ask  for  it,  and  shall  not  have 
it."  On  that  ground  alone,  I  say,  there  might  be  a  necessity  for  this  distinction. 

But  there  is  one  other  reason  connected  with  this  office — and  when  I  state  it  I 
shall  leave  this  branch  of  the  argument — and  that  is,  that  the  life  and  duties  of  a 
bishop  differ  altogether,  and  in  so  great  a  degree  from  those  of  the  travelling  preacher, 
as  really  to  afford  a  necessity  for  a  different  standard  and  example.  I  suppose  that 
to  the  usefulness  of  a  local  or  travelling  preacher  in  the  South,  slaveholding  con 
stitutes  no  objection.  It  probably  affords  no  drawback  at  all.  On  the  other  hand, 
this  Court  knows  perfectly  well,  this  whole  Church  and  this  country  know  perfectly 
well,  that  to  the  utility  of  a  bishop,  slaveholding  constitutes  an  objection  of  the 
gravest  and  most  practical,  not  to  say  decisive,  character.  This  Court  knows  per- 
fectly well  that  over  large  tracts  and  fields  of  his  episcopal  journey,  such  a  bishop  is 
but  half  a  bishop.  Your  Honours  know  perfectly  well  that  the  itinerant  superinten- 
dency  of  the  bishop  is  fundamental  in  the  practical  polity  of  Methodism.  Methodism 
may  give  up  almost  everything,  but  it  cannot  give  up  that.  Methodism  may  give 
up  this  tenet  or  that  tenet,  and  become  more  Calvinistic  or  less  Arminian.  But  she 
would  cease  to  have  a  particle  of  Wesleyanism  upon  her  front,  in  her  life,  in  her 
services,  and  in  her  name,  if  she  did  not  retain  a  superintendent  episcopacy,  who  can 
carry  the  presence  and  counsels  of  that  Church  to  the  most  extreme  locality,  however 
remote,  however  sectionalized  by  extremity  of  local  opinion, — who  can  carry  them 
everywhere,  and  be  everywhere  unblamed  and  unreproved  of  all  men.  That  is  of 
the  very  essence  of  Methodism.  When  this  is  dispensed  with,  everything  is  dis- 
pensed with.  Instead  of  stopping  to  prove  this,  as  I  could  prove  it,  I  will  content 
myself  by  referring  your  Honours  to  the  address  of  the  bishops  in  1844.  You  will 
there  see  that  I  do  not  exaggerate  the  importance  of  this  ornament  of  Methodism. 
It  is  of  the  essence  of  practical  Methodism  that  the  bishop  may  go,  and  shall  go — he 
shall  go  on  foot  if  necessary,  he  shall  go  barefooted  if  necessary,  he  shall  take  sack- 
cloth, he  shall  take  the  cross,  he  shall  not  go  figuratively  by  staying  home  and 
sending  another  ;  but  the  theory  of  the  system,  the  demands  of  the  system,  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  system,  what  it  has  achieved  for  the  world,  depend  upon  this  : — 


256 

that  the  bishop  shall  go  and  be  required  to  go  everywhere  personally,  from  time  to 
time,  from  one  extremity  of  his  circuit  to  another.  What  then  more  inevitable  than 
that  this  General  Conference  of  the  whole  Church,  that  recognised'  from  the  begin- 
ning the  right  of  the  South  to  its  proportion,  and  more  than  its  proportion,  should 
have  settled  it  as  a  rule,  that  he  from  the  South  who  would  aspire  to  it,  must  bring 
a  virtue  that  would  approve  itself  to  more  than  one  side  of  the  line — a  virtue  that  did 
not  need  the  apology  of  birth-place  and  residence — a  virtue  that  should  come  directly 
as  it  were  of  Divine  perfection  and  character,  that  should  be  winged,  created,  clothed 
to  be  welcome  everywhere,  by  whatsoever  things  are  lovely,  by  whatsoever  things 
are  honest,  by  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report  in  the  sight  of  all  men.  That 
became  perfectly  indispensable.  Therefore,  to  tell  Northern  members  of  such  a 
Church  as  this  that  they  ought  to  elect,  that  they  are  required  as  Methodists  to  elect 
a  slaveholder  to  the  office  of  bishop,  or  that,  finding  him  to  become  such,  they  must 
still  continue  him  there,  is  to  tell  them  they  must  cease  to  be  Methodists,  to  be 
Wesleyan  Methodists,  must  dismiss  themselves  of  an  itinerant  episcopacy  ;  in  other 
words,  a  change  of  discipline,  a  change  of  faith.  While  they  had  a  recorded  general 
rule  that  slaveholders  should  not  bear  office  in  that  Church,  and  while  they  yielded 
with  the  sensibilities  and  common-sense  of  men  to  the  necessities  that  required  a 
particular  exception,  they  never  dreamed  of  an  exception  for  an  hour  in  the  case 
of  a  bishop.  I  submit  that  the  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  shows  that 
the  sense  of  the  Conference  of  1844  was  that  such  an  exception  had  never  been 
dreamed  of. 

Then  I  submit  that  the  great  North  was  right,  and  the  great  South  was  wrong, 
that  day,  on  the  question  of  mere  innovation.  I  say  we  did  not  innovate  on  the  South 
in  the  slightest  degree.  Bishop  Andrew  was  not  tried,  was  not  sentenced,  was  not 
removed,  was  not  sufpended  from  his  office  ;  advice  was  given  him,  and  in  giving 
that  advice  we  kept  entirely  within  the  practice  of  the  Church,  as  settled  upon  the 
record  of  the  Church.  Suppose  this  were  doubtful.  In  the  name  of  common-sense 
and  reason,  was  a  structure  like  this,  reared  as  this  was,  built  for  the  offices  for  which 
this  was  built — should  a  structure  like  this  have  been  demolished  ;  first,  on  a  doubt  on 
the  meaning  of  our  act ;  and,  secondly,  on  a  doubt  of  the  meaning  of  one  of  the  articles 
in  the  creed  1  The  future  historian  of  that  Conference  will,  I  think,  say  that  the  mi- 
nority were  in  the  fault  in  this  business.  I  feel  bound  to  go  as  far  as  to  say  that 
from  what  I  have  seen  in  the  evidence,  prodigious  abilities  were  in  that  minority.  I 
have  seen  some  proofs  of  it  from  their  pens.  It  contained  men  of  the  highest  char- 
acter for  patriotism,  and  all  the  qualities  we  love, — all  that  we  would  take  back  to 
oar  embrace  if  we  might.  But  I  feel  bound  to  hold  them  responsible  for  that  day's 
work  to  a  certain  and  just  extent.  I  must  say,  that  although  there  may  be  undercur- 
rents of  which  we  cannot  judge,  for  we  are  here  in  a  court  of  law  and  on  the  proofs, 
I  believe  if  that  minority  had  not,  among  themselves,  under  the  exasperation  of  the 
vote  in  Bishop  Andrew's  case,  resolved  on  this  act,  and  had  not  thereupon  thrown 
themselves  into  it  with  a  passionate  energy,  if  they  had  not  thereupon  prepared  a 
circular,  to  which  I  may  or  may  not  have  time  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Court,  to 
the  South,  not  merely  predicting  but  initiating  that  result,  if  they  had  not  then  gone 
home  and  delivered  themselves  over  to  that  easy  and  yet  so  responsible  a  trade — so 
easy  to  such  abilities,  and  yet  so  responsible  for  such  a  use  of  them — the  manufacture 
of  public  opinion, — that  opinion  under  which  the  annual  conferences  of  the  South 
convened,  and  the  Louisville  Convention  assembled,  and  did  the  work, — I  bc]ievet 
before  God,  the  Church  would  have  stood  fair  as  the  moon,  with  all  her  banners  to- 
day as  hi  the  day  of  her  birth.  Some  local  excitement  there  might  have  been 
here  and  there.  There  always  is. .  And  it  is  the  very  use  of  reason  to  deal  with 


257 

such  local  excitement.  To  what  purpose  these  endowments  of  mind,  and  this  force 
of  character,  but  to  struggle  with  such  agitations  as  these  !  All  our  American  war- 
fare is  nothing  but  a  war  of  sense  and  nonsense — nothing  else,  in  the  world.  Some 
local  excitement  there  probably  would  have  been ;  but  if  fifty  of  these  gentlemen — 
twenty-five,  ten,  five — had  remembered  that  they  were  patriots  as  well  as  Methodists, 
and  Methodists  as  well  as  patriots — if  they  had  remembered  that  this  Church  was  origin- 
ally created  in  1784  for  the  nation  of  America — that  it  was  designed  by  its  founders  that 
through  and  by  an  original  unity,  not  merely  embracing  that  territory,  but  e,xpand- 
ing  to  the  universal  territory  of  the  New  World,  through  that  organism  Methodism  was 
to  work  out  its  mission  and  enjoy  its  life — that  the  chief  among  its  agents  is  the 
agency  of  itinerancy,  and  prominent  in  its  itinerancy  is  the  office  of  bishop,  whereby  a 
bishop  may  travel  from  shore  to  shore,  and  be  everywhere  a  father  among  his  chil- 
dren, a  presence  and  power  equally  beloved  and  authoritative — if  they  could  only 
have  remembered  that,  in  addition  to  all  that  was  demanded  of  it  as  a  Church,  it  was 
one  of  those  beautiful  instrumentalities — how  rare  and  indispensable  ! — by  which  the 
larger  union  outside,  which  embosoms  it,  was  to  be  kept  together — if  they  could  have 
gone  back  under  these  influences,  and  spoken  their  fervent  feelings  and  weighty 
speech  to  the  reason  of  the  South,  that  Church,  Troja  mine  stares,  would  have  stood 
this  day.  Such  is  my  confident  belief. 

I  have  been  looking  over  the  proceedings  of  the  Southern  annual  conferences  as 
put  in  evidence  in  the  case.  I  was  about  referring  to  some  beautiful  passages  from 
the  proceedings  of  the  conferences  in  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Arkansas,  and — the  far- 
ther the  better — Texas,  which  still  breathe  a  longing,  lingering  love  of  the  union,  and 
which  manifest  the  most  strong  and  reiterated  expression  that  they  will  not  separate 
if  they  can  by  possibility  avoid  it ;  thus  showing  that  they  could  not  tear  themselves 
from  the  warm  precincts  of  the  cheerful  day.  They  waited  for  the  assembling  of  the 
wise  men  of  the  Convention  of  Louisville,  and  waited  for  nothing  but  to  hope  they 
would  consider  that  there  should  be  no  necessity  for  separation.  The  journals  of  our 
Conference  of  1848  show  you  that  nearer  3,000  than  2,000  have  come  back,  and 
asked  permission  to  be  taken  again  into  the  old  fold  of  their  fathers'  and  mothers' 
baptism.  I  say  such  Methodists  as  these  might  have  been  kept ;  and  heavy,  heavy 
is  the  responsibility  which  will  allow  such  delicious  and  priceless  affections  as  these 
to  run  to  waste,  and  water  but  the  desert.  Still  heavier  is  the  responsibility  of  him 
who  puts  out  that  Promethean  fire  which  no  hand  may  rekindle. 

Now,  what  was  done  1  Did  the  minority  of  the  South  anywhere  put  on  the  record 
of  that  Conference  of  1844  their  opinion,  that  what  we  had  done  ought  to  dissolve 
the  Church  in  matter  of  conscience  and  political  ethics  1  Nothing  like  it ;  but  they 
put  on  the  records  merely  a  declaration  that  what  had  been  done  must  produce  a 
certain  state  of  things  at  the  South,  which  would  render  then-  continuance  in  the 
Church  impracticable.  It  is  a  very  striking  fact  that  they  did  not  place  on  the  records 
a  deliberate  declaration  of  their  own  opinion,  that  what  the  General  Conference  had 
done  in  matter  of  law  and  matter  of  conscience,  made  it  proper  and  fit  for  them  to 
dissolve  the  union  of  the  Church.  They  told  the  General  Conference  that  in  conse- 
quence of  its  action  a  certain  state  of  things  would  be  produced  at  the  South — that 
the  laity  of  the  South  would  be  aroused,  and  that  when  they  went  home,  if  they  found 
it  impossible  to  rule  the  roused  Methodism  of  the  South,  they  would  have  to  choose 
between  ties  to  them  and  ties  to  us.  Thereupon  the  General  Conference  said,  that  if 
such  a  casus  as  that  should  arise,  they  would  do  nothing  to  throw  any  impediment  in 
the  way.  I  have  made  inquiry,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  no  member  of  that  Conference 
—certainly,  not  a  great  majority  of  them — had  any  more  idea  that  they  were  voting 
for  a  division  of  the  Church,  than  that  they  were  voting  for  a  division  of  the  S.  ate. 

17 


258 

But  they  verily  believed  tnat  their  ready  manifestation  of  a  willingness  to  help  their 
Southern  friends — if  when  they  got  home  they  found  such  an  excited  state  of  feeling, 
would  help  to  maintain  the  connexion — that  this  would  operate  in  some  measure  as 
oil  on  the  troubled  waters,  and  thus  anticipate,  and  prevent  in  some  measure,  the 
catastrophe  which  had  arisen.  They  adopted  what  has  been  called  the  Plan  of  Sepa- 
ration, not  as  a  measure  of  division  but  as  a  preventative.  I  do  not  think  this  quite 
relieved  the  minority  from  all  responsibleness  in  that  behalf.  It  was  still  their 
duty  td  have  endeavoured  to  prevent  a  state  of  feeling  which  in  the  Conference  they 
undoubtedly  seemed  to  fear,  and  for  their  opinion  we  had  great  respect.  Their 
counsels  guided.  I  admire  their  abilities,  and  appreciate  their  patriotism,  and  love 
them  well  enough,  with  all  my  heart,  to  wish  them  back  again  in  the  same  Church 
with  my  clients,  and  I  do  not  know  that  I  could  breathe  them  a  better  wish.  As  to 
the  act  itself,  if  I  may  not  call  it,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Burke,  "  the  fond  election 
of  evil,"  was  it  not,  in  the  language  of  the  same  great  man,  "  the  unforced  choice  of 
evill"  I  escape  with  great  pleasure  from  matter  connected  but  remotely  with  the 
merits  of  the  case,  and  come  to  those  immediate  merits. 

The  case  actually  stated  in  the  bill  is  very  simple  and  very  clear.  The  learned 
counsel  who  opened,  states  or  intimates  in  his  argument  another  case  totally  distinct 
from  that  stated  in  the  bill,  as  I  understand  it,  which  creates  some  confusion  in  my 
own  mind.  Before  I  raise  the  real  question  which  I  wish  to  present  to  the  Court,  I 
would  seek  for  myself  a  clear  idea  of  the  equity  on  which  the  plaintiffs  claim.  Look- 
ing, then,  to  the  bill,  the  case  put  is  exactly  that  a  body  of  persons  and  of  annual 
conferences,  heretofore  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have,  by  their 
own  act  or  concurrence,  and  volition,  under  a  certain  Plan  of  Separation,  separated 
themselves  from  that  Church,  and  formed  themselves  into  another  totally  distinct  and 
independent  Church.  The-  case  stated  in  the  bill,  in  other  words,  is,  that  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  has  been  divided  in  twain  by  a  geographical  line,  and  that  they 
have  attached  themselves  voluntarily  to  the  Church  on  the  Southern  side  of  the  line, 
and  that  this  has  taken  place  under  such  circumstances  that  they  still  remain  entitled 
to  their  share  of  the  original  fund.  This  case  thus  stated  in  our  general  way  is  a 
perfectly  intelligible  one.  It  is  a  case  of  voluntary  separation.  It  raises  the  mere 
question  of  the  effect  of  such  separation  on  the  rights  of  the  separatists  to  the  original 
common  property.  But  your  Honours  will,  perhaps,  have  observed  that,  in  the  course 
of  his  argument,  my  learned  brother  perpetually  kept  introducing  another  case,  not 
stated  in  this  bill,  and  not  before  the  Court,  to  derive  from  that  case  some  aid  to  the 
one  stated  and  argued.  He  said  there  were  widows  and  orphans  who  were  to  lose 
their  rights  on  the  doctrines  of  this  defence,  without  any  act  of  their  own,  and  there- 
upon he  pressed  us  to  know  if  we  would  put  such  a  class  of  non-combatants  as  these 
to  the  scalping-knife  and  the  tomahawk,  whatever  we  might  be  inclined  to  do  with 
the  great  body  of  the  plaintiffs  whom  we  have  to  encounter.  In  regard  to  that,  I 
have  to  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  no  case  is  before  this  Court  but  that  of  voluntary 
separatists,  or  those  whom  other  volunteers  have  separated  from  the  Church.  If 
there  are  widows  and  orphans  on  the  Southern  side  of  this  line,  who  have  not  volun- 
tarily separated  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  who  have  not  been  carried 
away  from  that  Church  by  the  acts  of  other  persons,  themselves  volunteers,  with 
whom  they  are  ecclesiastically  connected,  then  the  defence  which  we  make  to  the 
plaintiffs'  bill  excepts  such  a  case — and  no  such  case  is  stated  in  this  bill,  or  prepared 
in  argument  for  the  consideration  of  this  Court.  This  bill  is  for  voluntary  separatists, 
not  for  those  who  have  not  participated  in  the  act  of  separation ;  and  therefore  the 
defence  we  here  make  has  no  application  to  the  class  of  people  for  whose  title  to  the 
sympathies,  not  to  say  the  justice,  of  this  Court,  my  learned  brother  seemed  desirous 

17* 


259 

to  borrow  some  kind  of  advantage.  I  hardly  know  that  I  need  say  anything  as  to 
that  limited  and  anomalous  description  of  persons  further  than  this. 

If  the  Court  will  look  into  the  journals  of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  to  the 
action  of  that  Conference  upon  petitions  of  thousands  from  the  South  who  have 
sought  to  return  to  the  body  of  the  Church,  they  will  see  that  the  doctrine  which  we 
have  there  declared  on  record  is,  that  everybody  who  has  not  withdrawn,  or  who  has 
not  been  expelled,  is  still  a  member  of  this  Church.  Therefore,  if  it  be  true  of  these 
widows  and  orphans,  or  any  of  them,  that  they  have  not  acted  at  all,  they  still  re- 
main, for  aught  I  know,  within  the  pale  of  the  Church  ;  and  we  should  be  but  too 
happy,  so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  to  apply  the  fund  to  them.  But  their  case  is  not 
stated  on  the  record,  it  is  not  presented  in  the  bill,  it  is  not  argued  substantially  by 
counsel.  To  their  case  our  defence  has  no  application  whatever.  I  object,  there- 
fore, to  my  learned  friend  drawing  to  his  banner,  and  bringing  to  his  aid  such  a 
description  of  parties  as  these.  He  will  give  us  leave  to  say,  that  it  is  hardly  fair, 
although  it  is  very  skilful  warfare  in  him  to  do  so,  to  come  to  us  at  the  head  of  some 
500,000  Southern  combatants,  less  or  more  ;  and  when  we  turn  -round  to  fire  upon 
them,  to  say,  "  Take  care ;  you  will  kill  some  widow  or  some  orphan,  and  these 
widows  and  orphans  are  no  combatants,  no  marks  for  you."  Our  answer  to  that  is, 
that  with  that  class  of  parties  we  have  no  encounter,  and  if  his  clients  would  avail 
themselves  of  the  immunities  of  orphans,  they  had  better  begin  by  clothing  them- 
selves with  the  innocence  of  orphans.  It  is  with  the  voluntary  separatists  of  the  bill 
alone  that  we  deal. 

Turning  then  to  the  case,  as  it  is  exactly  stated,  and  taking  it  under  its  most  for- 
midable aspect,  that  is  to  say,  of  an  income  for  these  beneficiaries,  which  is,  perhaps, 
the  most  formidable  and  most  plausible  aspect  in  which  the  learned  counsel  presents 
the  case, — and  by  preachers,  I  mean  the  limited  description  of  preachers  to  whom 
the  fund  is  directed, — our  answer  is,  that  they  have  no  claim,  because  they  have 
lost  by  their  own  act  the  one  fundamental  and  indispensable  qualification  of  continu- 
ing membership  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  To  maintain  this,  we  shall 
submit,  that  the  acts  of  the  plaintiffs  worked  a  simple  secession  from  the  Church, 
without  lawful  authority,  terminating  their  own  membership,  and  yet  leaving  the 
identity  of  the  Church  altogether  unaffected.  If  so,  we  sey,  it  can  scarcely  be 
denied  that  they  have  lost  the  right  in  losing  the  qualification.  To  open  our  gene- 
ral answer  to  the  bill  a  little  more  broadly,  if  we  should  suppose  that  the  plaintiffs 
had  succeeded  in  establishing  the  position  that  they  left  the  Church  and  terminated 
membership,  which  was  the  qualification  under  which  they  held  the  title,  by  lawful 
authority,  leaving  the  original  Church,  in  fact,  in  its  associated  .identity,  still  we 
submit  that  they  have  not  carried  with  them  a  particle  of  right  to  any  portion  of  this 
fund,  principal  or  interest ;  because,  on  such  secession  and  termination  of  membership 
as  this,  it  is  a  universal  proposition  of  law,  as  we  understand  it,  that  the  secedcr 
takes  nothing,  unless  at  the  time  of  secession,  or  before,  or  afterwards,  the  act  is  at- 
tended and  qualified  by  a  grant  of  property  from  a  body  competent  to  make  such  a 
grant.  In  this  case  we  say,  that  even  if  the  plaintiffs  have  left  the  Church  under 
the  sanction  of  competent  ecclesiastical  authority,  they  have  no  such  grant  of  autho- 
rity :  1st.  Because  the  General  Conference  had  no  power  to  make  it ;  2d.  Because  it 
did  not  assume  the  power  to  make  it,  if  it  had  it  ;  and  3dly.  Because  both  the  Gene- 
ral and  annual  conferences  together,  could  not  take  it  away  from  the  uses  to  which 
it  was  originally  devoted  ;  the  travelling  supernumerary  and  superannuated  preachers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  remaining  members  in  it. 

It  will  be  convenient  for  me  however,  instead  of  now  adverting  to  the  fund,  to  ad- 
vance at  or,ce  to  the  proposition  that  the  plaintiffs'  act  in  leaving  the  Church  was  a 


260 

simple,  bold,  and  unauthorized  act  of  secession,  unauthorized  by  any  ecclesiastical 
authority  whatever ;  and,  therefore,  according  to  the  universal  law,  as  we  apprehend 
it,  the  right  of  property  terminated  by  the  act  of  secession. 

We  say,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  proceedings  of  the  plaintiffs  were  a  simple, 
unauthorized  secession,  and  that  they  leave  the  identity  of  the  old  Church  entirely 
unaffected.  I  suppose  it  will  be  hardly  controverted  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiffs, 
certainly  it  is  entirely  and  perfectly  clear,  that  independently  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1844,  the  act  of  the  plaintiffs,  and  of  everybody  who 
participated  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Louisville  Convention,  would  be  a  simple  and 
unauthorized  secession  from  the  Methodist  Church.  Prima  facie,  I  mean  to  say, 
that  unless  they  shall  be  qualified  by  the  action  of  the  General  Conference,  called  the 
Plan  of  Separation,  the  proceedings  of  the  plaintiffs,  and  those  with  whom  they  are 
associated  and  act,  work  a  simple  and  mere  secession  from  the  Church.  If  your 
Honours  will  glance  at  the  resolutions  of  that  Louisville  Convention,  as  they  are 
stated  in  the  plaintiffs'  bill,  p.  6,  fol.  20,  you  will  find  that  they  in  terms  declare,  and 
then  proceed  to  achieve  a  separation  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They 
in  terms  proceed  to  renounce  the  jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  in  all  its 
terms,  and  in  all  its  forms,  and  to  impede  the  organism  through  which  that  jurisdic- 
tion could  be  exerted.  They  then  proceed  to  constitute  the  portion  of  the  Church 
which  acts  in  and  through  them  into  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical  association 
and  organization,  for  whose  government,  and  faith,  and  discipline,  and  indefinite  ex- 
istence, they  go  on  to  make  complete  and  independent  provisions.  Now,  of  course, 
the  effect  of  all  this — unqualified,  as  I  have  said,  by  the  act  of  the  General  Confer- 
ence, to  the  influence  of  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  proceed  in  a  moment — is  se- 
cession and  nothing  else.  In  its  effect,  it  is  exactly  as  if,  instead  of  five  hundred 
thousand  persons,  five  persons  had  turned  from  Methodism  to  Presbyterianism  or 
Congregationalism,  and  had  gone  off  by  themselves  from  the  body.  I  take  it  to  be  al- 
together too  clear  to  discuss,  that  the  number  of  those  who  go,  their  continuing 
Methodism,  their  simultaneous  organization  of  themselves  into  a  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  the  farewell  words  of  kindness  with  which  they  take  their  leave,  and 
the  protestations  which  we  find  scattered  over  the  proceedings  of  the  Louisville  Con- 
vention, to  the  effect  -that  they  do  not  intend  to  separate  or  secede,  do  not  control 
the  matter  in  the  slightest  degree.  Actions,  here  as  elsewhere,  overrule  words ; 
and  no  protestations,  and  no  declaration  of  the  purity  of  their  course  can  possibly  ex- 
tricate their  case  from  the  influence  of  a  conclusive  presumption  of  law,  prima  facie, 
unless  they  can  qualify  it  and  transform  it  by  resorting  to  the  Plan  of  Separation. 
They  have  deserted  the  Church  in  the  boldest  possible  form  and  most  intense  ex- 
tent. I  may  perhaps  anticipate,  though  not  in  the  immediate  course  of  my  intended 
discussion  at  this  time,  so  far  as  to  say,  that  I  understand  it  to  be  perfectly  clear, 
according  to  the  doctrine  universally  accepted  on  this  subject,  that  a  simple  secession, 
such  as  this  would  be  but  for  the  vote  and  plan  of  the  General  Conference,  is  per- 
fectly futile  to  claim  the  property  asserted  in  this  bill,  however  that  property  may 
be  holden, — whether  it  belonged  to  the  society  in  the  aggregate,  or  was  held  by 
certain  of  its  members  in  trust  as  a  charitable  use  for  certain  other  members.  I 
understand  it  to  be  universally  holden  by  the  jurisprudence  of  all  civilization,  that 
euch  a  secession  as  this  would  be,  upon  that  hypothesis,  secession  unauthorized  by 
ecclesiastical  property,  and  forfeits  the  title  as  a  matter  of  course.  Indeed,  I  sup- 
pose it  is  just  as  clear — it  is  one  of  the  points  which  we  have  presented  to  the 
Court  this  morning  on  our  brief — that,  even  if  the  secession  were  completely  autho- 
rized by  competent  ecclesiastical  authority,  but  leaving  the  old  organism  in  its  local 
identity,  it  works  the  very  same  consequences  on  the  title.  I  suppose  it  entirely  true 


261 

tk.V;  if  a  religious  association,  incorporated  or  unincorporated,  holds  a  fund  by  any 
title  oebnging  to  the  society  in  the  aggregate,  or  held  by  a  part  in  trust  for  the  rest, 
and  thereupon  a  secession  takes  place  by  their  consent,  the  seceder  carries  no  inte- 
rest in  the  fund.  I  understand  that  to  be  universally  true  of  all  incorporated  or  un- 
incorporated associations.  This  is  a  common  case,  and  we  have  referred  the  Court 
to  many  cases  of  it.  In  New-England,  if  a  portion  of  a  city  or  town  is  set  off  into  a 
separate  town,  it  does  not  carry  with  it  any  portion  of  the  funds  of  the  old  corpora- 
tion without  a  special  agreement  to  that  effect.  There  was  a  strong  illustration  of 
it  in  a  case  reported  in  the  16th  of  Massachusetts  Reports,  where  the  old  county  of 
Berkshire  was  divided  into  three  counties,  and  the  legislature,  inadvertently  at  the 
time  of  making  the  act  of  division,  perhaps,  forgot  to  provide  for  a  division  of  the 
corporate  property,  and  the  very  next  legislature  undertook  to  correct  the  mistake. 
In  that  case  it  was  holden  to  be  unconstitutional,  as  there  was  no  provision  made  for 
a  division  of  property  in  the  act  authorizing  the  division  of  the  county.  So  that  I 
understand  it  to  be  a  universal  proposition,  that  upon  a  secession,  authorized  or  un- 
authorized, as  the  general  rule,  the  seceder  carries  no  property  in  the  fund  which 
before  belonged  to  the  whole  association,  unless  his  act  be  attended  and  disarmed 
of  its  consequences  by  an  accompanying  grant  of  a  share  of  the  property  by  the 
competent  authority.  Not,  however,  to  anticipate,  but  to  confine  myself  for  the 
present  merely  to  the  act  of  secession,  to  qualify  the  prima  facie  influence  of  this 
secession,  and  the  consequences  of  that  act,  the  plaintiffs  have,  of  course,  the  burden 
of  proof ;  and  to  encounter  it,  they  invoke  the  vote  of  the  General  Conference, 
called  the  Plan  of  Separation.  That  Plan,  as  well  as  I  can,  with  all  the  attention  I 
have  been  able  to  give  it,  understand  it,  the  plaintiffs  assert  divided  the  Church  in 
two,  and  by  some  operation  or  other,  that  I  am  not  quite  confident  to  this  hour  I  dis- 
tinctly understand*,  even  without  the  assent  of  the  annual  conferences,  it  enabled 
them  to  depart,  and  yet  to  carry  with  them  a  portion  of  the  original  common 
fund. 

Upon  this  a  great  many  questions  arise  ;  but  the  first  to  which  I  wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  your  Honours  is,  whether  or  not  this  act  of  the  General  Conference  is  not 
a  more  nullity  in  the  contemplation  of  ecclesiastical  law,  in  so  far  as  it  was  an  act 
assuming  to  divide  the  Church  under  which,  of  course,  the  plaintiffs  take  no  right. 
My  first  proposition  is,  that  it  is  an  entire  and  perfect  nullity,  for  want  of  authority 
in  the  body  called  the  General  Conference  to  divide  the  Church  according  to  the 
Methodist  ecclesiastical  polity.  This,  then,  raises  two  general  questions, — 1.  What 
is  the  nature  of  the  act  1  and  2.  What  are  the  powers  of  the  body  that  did  this 
act! 

It  is  to  be  observed,  in  the  first  place,  with  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  act,  that  in 
in  order  to  avail  the  plaintiffs  in  the  slightest  degree,  it  must  be  held  to  be  an  act 
whereby  the  General  Conference  divides  the  Church  into  two — everybody  agrees  it 
must  do  that, — and  whereby  it  divides  the  Church  in  two,  but  wholly  destroys  the 
old  association,  and  produces  two  new  ones  in  its  place.  I  have  already  indicated, 
and  I  shall  by-and-by  have  occasion  to  submit  more  at  length,  that  if  the  act  does 
not  go  to  this  extent — if  it  goes  no  further  than  a  mere  setting  off  a  part  from  the 
whole,  leaving  the  identity  of  the  original  whole  unaffected,  and  does  not  at  the  same 
time  accompany  it  by  a  grant  of  any  portion  of  the  estate — then  it  does  not  avail  the 
plaintiffs.  Therefore,  I  submit,  though  in  the  bill  they  confine  themselves  to  the 
mere  allegation,  that  this  act  has  divided  the  Church  in  two,  without  advancing  so 
far  as  to  say  whether  it  has  destroyed  the  original  Church  and  made  two  new  ones, 
in  order  to  avail  themselves  of  the  act  in  the  slightest  degree,  they  must  go  that 
extent.  Therefore,  they  must  establish  the  two  constituents  of  the  Ovidian  meta- 


262 

morphosis,  not  merely  the  forma  mutata,  but  also  the  novum  carpus,  or  their  case 
fails.  If,  however,  it  does  not  go  so  far  as  the~destruction  of  the  old  Church,  and 
the  production  of  two  new  ones,  it  is  at  least  a  division  of  the  Church ;  and  it  is  in 
that  aspect  of  the  act  that  I  desire  for  a  moment  to  consider  it,  and  then  to  inquire 
whether  or  not  this  Conference  had  the  constitutional  competence  to  do  such  an 
»>ct. 

It  is,  then,  a  division  of  the  Church ;  it  is  so  urged  in  terms,  and  is  unquestion- 
ably so  in  every  view  of  the  case.  To  avail  the  plaintiffs,  however,  it  must  be  made 
out  in  matter  of  fact  that  it  is  a  division  of  the  Church ;  that  it  divided  an  existing 
Church  theretofore  one,  established  to  be  one,  organized  completely,  and  covering 
jurisdictionally  and  spiritually,  sccundum  subjcctam  materiam,  a  certain  territory,  into 
two  Churches,  separated  by  one  geographical  line  running  directly  through  the  origi- 
nal territory,  and  each  Church  totally  distinct,  and  totally  independent.  That  is  the 
nature  of  the  act.  It  is  not  a  mere  dismission  of  a  single  member  from  the  Church 
in  malam  partcm,  or  in  bonam  partem.  It  is  not  the  excommunication  of  a  party  ; 
not  the  dismissal  of  a  party  with  letters  of  recommendation ;  it  is  not  the  calling  in 
of  a  missionary  on  a  lying-out  frontier,  ascertained  to  be  too  far  distant  for  the  prose- 
cution of  his  enterprise  of  benevolence ;  nor  is  it,  as  was  the  case  between  this 
Church  and  Canada,  the  dissolving  of  a  treaty,  or  the  terminating  of  a  compact  be- 
tween two  Churches  theretofore  existing  legally  independent,  but  united  by  a  tempo- 
rary tie.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  a  division  of  an  existing  substance  into  two.  It  is, 
ecclesiastically  and  in  fact,  precisely  such  an  act  as  it  would  be  politically,  if  the 
general  government  were  to-morrow  to  assume  to  divide  the  United  States  by  Mason's 
and  Dixon's  line  prolonged  from  sea  to  sea.  and  proceed  to  establish  two  indepen- 
dent nations  on  the  different  sides  of  the  line,  and  then  to  go  on  indicating  a  plan  for 
dividing  the  buildings,  the  ships,  the  arsenals,  and  the  flag  equally  between  us.  May 
that  omen  at  least  be  averted !  It  is  a  division,  and  nothing  less  nor  more  than  a 
division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

I  ask  the  Court,  before  I  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  powers  of  this  body  constitu- 
tionally to  do  such  an  act,  to  pause  for  a  moment  in  the  still  further  contemplation 
of  the  act  itself.  This  is  a  division  of  a  Church  which  had  existed  in  1844,  called 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  was  one  Church.  At  that  time  it  had  been  one 
sometime  longer  than  these  States  in  this  Union  had  been  one  under  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  general  government.  Methodism,  as  I  have  read  in  these  proceedings, 
had  its  birth  and  baptism  in  an  upper  chamber  somewhere  in  the  city  of  New-York, 
in  1766.  Thence  it  spread  and  grew,  embarrassed  somewhat  by  the  troubles  that 
preceded  the  breaking  out  of  the  revolutionary  war,  and  still  more  by  the  ftvolution- 
ary  war  itself,  until  at  last,  in  1784,  its  hymns  were  sung,  and  its  fervid  oratory 
spoken,  in  the  pine  woods  and  upon  the  river  banks,  in  some  seven  States,  and  in  the 
hearing  of  some  14,000  or  15,000  members.  That  was  in  1784.  Still,  down  to  that 
tune,  it  recognised  a  certain  British  tie.  Its  founder  and  its  ruler  was  Wesley,  who 
was  an  Englishman  to  the  last  day  of  his  life.  Its  preachers  were,  I  believe,  all  of 
them,  down  to  that  time,  of  British  ordination.  •  Its  sacraments  were  denied  to  it 
through  the  agency  of  its  own  service,  and  could  be  enjoyed  only  by  leaving  the 
Methodist  meeting,  and  seeking  for  them  within  the  walls  of  an  Episcopal  Church 
by  the  English  law,  to  which  Wesley  all  his  life,  certainly  as  late  as  that  period,  con- 
tinued to  adhere.  In  1784,  sympathetic  with  the  new  American  national  life,  Me- 
thodism, the  Methodism  of  the  United  States,  the  collective  general  will  of  American 
Methodism,  expressed  by  the  preachers  and  by  the  laity,  assembled  in  an  extraordi- 
nary Convention,  for  that  was  the  true  character  of  it,  expressly  on  that  subject,  con- 
vened under  a  letter  from  Wesley  recommending  that  proceeding,  decided  to  form 


263 

itself  into  one  Church — one  independent  and  indivisible  by  the  terms  of  its  creation 
The  Court  will  see  that  it  was  expected  to  be  a  Church  in  and  for  these  United 
States,  that  it  was  expected  from  its  origin  to  grow  with  their  growth,  and  to  expand 
with  their  area,  to  breathe  over  their  gigantic  frame  its  spiritual  culture,  to  contri- 
bute to  their  amelioration,  to  consolidate  their  unity,  and  to  attend  their  various  for- 
tunes through  the  corporate,  and  associate,  and  connected  life  of  both.  I  pray  your 
Honours'  attention,  in  this  immediate  connexion,  to  the  letter  under  which  the  Con- 
ference was  called  by  which  the  Church  was  formed.  And  it  is  very  striking  to 
remark  how  the  Church,  in  its  very  origin,  had  a  national  character  and  a. national 
tie,  and  might  very  well  expect  to  survive  and  perform  a  series  of  national  service 
as  long  as  there  was  a  Church  to  work  or  a  nation  to  serve. 
On  pp.  3  and  4  of  Proofs  No.  1,  Wesley,  in  his  letter,  says — 

"  By  a  very  uncommon  train  of  providences  many  of  the  provinces  of  North  Ame- 
rica are  totally  disjoined  from  the  British  empire,  and  erected  into  independent 
States.  The  English  government  has  no  authority  over  them,  either  civil  or  eccle- 
siastical, any  more  than  over  the  States  of  Holland.  A  ciyil  authority  is  exercised 
over  them,  partly  by  the  congress,  partly  by  the  State  assemblies.  But  no  one  either 
exercises  or  claims  any  ecclesiastical  authority  at  all.  In  this  peculiar  situation  some 
thousands  of  the  inhabitants  of  these  States  desire  my  advice,  and  in  compliance 
with  their  desire  I  have  drawn  up  a  little  sketch,"  &c. 

Your  Honours  will  observe  the  exigency.  In  consequence  of  the  independence  of 
a  new  nation,  Mr.  Wesley  advised  the  establishment  of  a  Church  for  that  nation. 
He  says  that  thousands  of  its  inhabitants  solicited  his  advice,  and  he  proceeds  to  re- 
commend the  creation  of  a  "new  Church  for  the  new  independence.  He  constitutes 
Coke  and  Asbury  joint  superintendents  over  the  American  brethren.  By  turning  to 
pp.  5,  6  and  7,  your  Honours  will  observe  that  it  is  certain  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  who,  under  this  letter,  they  having  undoubtedly  formed  part  of  the  thousands 
who  solicited  his  advice,  proceed,  in  contemplation  of  the  same  crisis — the  erection 
of  a  new  nation  to  independence — to  found  a  Church  for  it.  I  beg  leave  to  read  a 
passage  from  page  5  : — 

"  To  carry  into  effect  the  proposed  organization,  a  General  Conference  of  preachers 
was  called,  to  meet  in  Baltimore  at  Christmas,  1784.  Sixty,  out  of  the  eighty-three 
preachers  then  in  the  travelling  connexion,  attended  at  the  appointed  time.  '  At  this 
conference,'  say  the  annual  minutes  for  1785,  '  it  was  unanimously  agreed,  that  cir- 
cumstances made  it  convenient  for  us  to  become  a  separate  body,  under  the  denomi- 
nation of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.'  " 

Turning  from  that,  I  ask  attention  to  some  of  the  questions  in  the  Discipline  of 
1784,  page  6  : — 

"  Quest.  2.    What  can  be  done  in  order  to  the  future  union  of  the  Methodists  T 

"  Ans.  During  the  life  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wesley,  we  acknowledge  ourselves  his 
sons  in  the  Gospel,  ready,  in  matters  belonging  to  Church  government,  to  obey  his 
commands.  And  we  do  engage,  after  his  death,  to  do  everything  that  we  judge  con- 
sistent with  the  cause  of  religion  in  America,  and  the  political  interests  of  these 
States,  to  preserve  and  promote  ouf  union  with  the  Methodists  in  Europe. 

"  Quest.  3.  As  the  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  civil  affairs  of  these  United  States 
have  passed  through  a  very  considerable  change  by  the  revolution,  what  plan  of 
Church  government  shall  we  hereafter  pursue? 

"  Ans.  WTe  will  form  ourselves  into  an  episcopal  Church,  under  the  direction  of 
superintendents,  elders,  deacons,  and  helpers,  according  to  the  forms  of  ordination 
annexed  to  our  liturgy,  and  the  Form  of  Discipline  set  forth  in  these  Minutes." 

So,  then,  contemporaneously  with  the  emerging  of  a  new  nation  to  life,  a.  new 
Church — the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — by  the  same  general  agencies,  or  sympa- 


264 

thetic  with  the  same  general  agencies,  was  brought  into  existence.  In  its  first 
breath,  it  was  a  unit,  it  was  one  Church.  The  evidence  that  it  was  to  be  and  remain 
a  unity  as  long  as  it  should  exist  is  just  as  unequivocal  as  the  evidence  that  it  was  to 
exist  at  all.  There  is  as  little  dream  of  duality  in  this  birthtime  of  the  Methodist 
Church  as  there  is  of  deism  or  pantheism.  Duality  is  no  less  a  heresy,  according  to 
the  objects  and  original  destiny  of  this  Church,  than  either  the  one  or  the  other.  Its 
territorial  extent,  present  and  future,  was  meant  to  be  perfectly  defined,  and  ab  on- 
gine  it  was.  and  was  to  be  co-extensive  with  these  States.  By  a  solemn  compact  of 
all  with  each,  and  each  with  all,  that  power  which  created  that  Church  in  1784,  who- 
ever that  power  was, — call  it  the  whole  body  of  preachers,  the  whole  body  of  Metho- 
dist laity,  that  vast  body  of  preachers  and  laity,  preachers  acting  for  the  laity  and 
laity  for  the  preachers, — ordained  from  its  birth  that  it  should  be  one  Church.  Even 
then,  it  is  striking  and  beautiful  to  observe,  that  they  saw  in  it  the  promise  of  an 
abiding  and  an  expanding  agency,  for  the  benefit  of  the  nation  whose  members  they 
were  become. 

I  submit  that  everything  in  the  history  of  Methodism,  everything  in  its  origin, 
everything  about  it,  is  unity.  Unity  is  the  law  of  its  being.  From  the  start  every- 
thing implies,  everything  expresses  it.  Go  back  to  its  origin,  and  you  find  that  from 
its  birth-time  till  1844,  unity  is  everywhere.  It  is  as  frontlets  between  its  eyes.  It 
is  written  on  every  fold  of  its  robe.  It  is  garnered  up  in  every  corner  of  its  large 
heart.  Every  one  of  its  institutions  was  originally  adapted  to  the  preservation  of  that 
unity  to  the  end.  For  the  administration  of  local  business  it  has  local  judicatories  ; 
for  the  conduct  of  its  general  affairs,  proceeding  on  the  plan  of  our  grand  secular 
Union,  it  has  a  general  body ;  and  then,  above  all,  is  that  extraordinary  distinguish- 
ing and  characteristic  element  of  a  grand  superintending  itinerancy,  whereby  the 
universal  Methodism  of  America  may  be  said  to  be  brought  together  from  season  to 
season,  in  one  vast  creation,  homogeneous  and  identical,  to  be  kindled  with  one 
flame,  to  be  melted  in  one  tide  of  emotion,  to  sit  down  to  eat  and  drink  unreproved 
and  unblamed  at  the  same  promiscuous  banquet  of  charity.  That  Church,  thus 
created  for  unity,  of  which  unity  is  a  part  and  parcel,  the  General  Conference  of 
1844,  it  is  said,  has  divided  in  twain.  Forgetting  their  own  subordinate  and  admini- 
strative relations  to  the  Church,  and  to  the  sovereign  will  behind,  that  created  and 
produced  it;  forgetting  that  the  grand  idea  of  Wesley  and  the  generation  of  1784 
was,  that  the  Methodism  of  these  United  States  should  work  out  all  its  ends  in  and 
through  and  by  the  instrumentality  of  a  compacted  and  organic  unity,  and  that  when 
it  ceased  to  be  one,  whatever  it  became,  it  ceased  to  be  the  original  Methodism  of 
Wesley  ;  forgetting  that  its  essence  was  itinerancy,  and  through  itinerancy  a  whole 
nation  was  meant  to  be  kept  within  a  single  fold ;  I  will  not  say,  forgetting  their 
duties  as  patriots  and  as  men,  but,  as  it  seems  to  me,  with  great  respect,  miscon- 
ceiving those  duties,  and  showing  themselves  for  the  moment,  a  little  unequal  to  the 
forbearance,  and  self-control,  and  humility  which  the  hour  demanded,  and  which  enno- 
bles more  than  it  degrades  any  man — forgetting  these,  this  General  Conference 
divided  this  Church  in  two  as  coolly  as  a  mathematician  would  draw  a  great  circle 
on  a  wooden  globe.  It  was  divided  in  an  instant,  even  as  if  a  child  were  cut  through 
the  head  and  heart  to  compose  the  dissensions  of  stepmothers. 

I  know  that  a  great  deal  of  ingenuity  has  been  employed  by  my  learned  and  able 
friend  on  the  other  side,  to  prove  that  all  the  Methodism  has  not  been  divided.  A 
great  deal  of  pains  has  been  taken  to  show  that  Methodists,  whoever  they  are,  and 
wherever  they  are,  are  one  body.  I  believe  some  poetry  has  been  printed,  to  the 
effect  that  although  mountains  rise  and  rivers  roll  between  nations  of  Methodists,  still 
a  certain  tie  of  Methodism  unites  them  at  last.  I  submit  that  that  is  nothing  at  all 


265 

to  the  purpose  ;  for  after  all,  this  forgets  entirely  that  the  Methodism  of  1784  was  the 
Methodism  that  was  to  exist,  and  act,  and  do  its  work,  only  through  and  by  means 
of  an  organic  unity  ;  and  when  that  organic  unity  is  cloven  down,  and  that  structure 
destroyed,  it  is  in  vain  to  say  that,  though  unity  is  gone  and  the  Church  is  dead, 
Methodism  is  alive.  Why,  suppose  the  National  Government  to-morrow  should  di- 
vide these  States  into  two  independent  nations,  or  thirty-one,  or  thirty-two,  or  five 
hundred  independent  nations,  I  suppose  about  the  same  absolute  quantity  of  demo- 
cratic liberty  might  remain  and  lift  up  its  voice  all  over  this  land.  I  dare  say,  inas- 
much as  a  certain  tie  is  said  to  connect  us  everywhere,  we  should  still  retain  a  tie  of 
connexion  with  one  another  till,  through  a  series  of  affliction,  and  struggle,  and  strife, 
we  had  been  fain  to  take  refuge  all  of  us  beneath  the  Dead  Sea  of  despotism,  just  as 
we  are  connected  with  patriot  Hungary  and  patriot  Poland,  and  other  patriotic  falls. 
I  dare  say  the  same  quantity  of  republicanism  would  be  left ;  but  this  national  unity, 
through  which  our  liberty  was  achieved — this  constitutional  unity — where  would  it 
bel  Just  exactly  where  the  Methodism  of  1784  went  when  the  Church  in  which  it 
was  embodied,  and  through  which  it  was  to  act,  was  destroyed  by  the  act  of  the 
Conference. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  the  General  Conference  had  the  constitutional 
authority,  under  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of  Methodism,  to  make  such  a  division  as 
this.  We  utterly  deny  it ;  and  I  feel  an  extreme  anxiety  to  bespeak  ia  advance  the 
indulgent  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  perhaps  very  tedious  historical'  argument,,  to 
some  extent,  by  which  I  am  now  about  to  endeavour  to  establish  that  proposition.  I' 
submit  that  they  had  not  a  particle  of  authority,  under  the  ecclesiastical  polity  of 
Methodism,  to  divide  the  Church  at  all.  The  question  might  perhaps  be  avoided  on 
the  part  of  these  defendants,  for,  as  I  have  said,  according  to  a  view  of  the  act  on 
which  we  shall  much  insist  before  the  argument  shall  be  concluded,,  even  if  it  had 
power  to  divide  the  Church,  he  who  retires  takes  no  fund  with  him,  unless  by  a  spe- 
cial grant.  But  the  question  lies  in  that.  It  is  one  of  a  great  deal  of  interest,  and 
a  right  determination  of  it,  which  we  shall  be  sure  to  have  from  the  learning  of  this 
Bench,  will,  in  my  humble  judgment,  do  something  to  conduct  these  parties  back 
again,  which  I  personally  certainly  very  much  desire. 

It  is  common  to  say,  and  it  is  said  in  the  case  cited  the  other  day  from  Benj.  Meo- 
roe — a  case  which  I  brought  with  me,  as  it  is  the  one  which  discussed  this  subject — 
that  there  is  a  sovereign  and  ultimate  power  in  all  bodies  competent  to  destroy  it. 
There  must  be,  it  is  very  common  to  say,  some  power  to  dissolve  tie  Union ;  there 
must  be  a  power  somewhere  competent  to  dissolve  a  corporation,  a  firm,  to  dissolve 
the  Church,  to  dissolve  society  itself.  This  may  very  well  be  so ;  and"  this  was  an  ar- 
gument which  was  very  much  pressed  by  my  learned  brother,  in  adverting  to  a  great 
variety  of  circumstances  which  might  occur,  in  the  progress  of  events,  to  render  a 
division  of  this  Church  expedient,  and  perhaps  necessary.  But  then  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  any  specific  body  in  a  given  polity  is  the  organic  depository  of  this  transcendent 
and  fatal  power.  Whether  any  specific  body,  as  the  General  Conference,  has  it  or 
not,  or  whether  such  a  body  itself  is  a  mere  subordinate  or  administrative  function, 
depending  on  a  higher  and  secret  sovereign  will,  is  a  question  in  every  case  of  his- 
tory and  of  law.  That  is  a  question  in  this  case  as  applicable  to  the  General  Con- 
ference. 

Somewhere,  I  may  admit,  the  power  must  exist.  It  must  exist,  if  your  Honours 
please,  in  the  General  Conference,  or  in  the  sovereign  will  which  created  the  Church 
behind  it ;  but  whether  in  one  or  the  other,  is  a  question  of  law  and  of  history — a 
question  of  ecclesiastical  law  to  be  illustrated  by  the  history  of  the  Church — a  ques- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  law  upon  the  polity  of  Methodism  itself.  I  have  drawn  out 


266 

with  some  care  a  proposition  which  I  shall  endeavour  to  maintain,  in  regard  to  the 
powers  of  the  General  Conference.  Our  proposition  is,  that  the  General  Conference 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  whenever,  as  in  1844,  it  is  called  and  assembled 
in  its  ordinary  course,  under  its  ordinary  and  appointed  designations  of  meeting,  is  a 
mere  administrative  body  of  the  Church.  It  is,  and  always  has  be«n,  the  superin- 
tending legislature,  judiciary,  and  executive  of  the  Church,  created  and  existing  to 
administer  its  affairs  from  time  to  time,  and  for  that  purpose  durantc  vita  to  make 
rules  and  regulations  for  its  government,  and  provisions  for  its  unity,  and  growth,  and 
good ;  but  it  was  a  subordinate  agent,  a  servant  of  the  Church  itself.  It  never  was 
the  original  creator  of  the  Church.  Sitting  in  its  ordinary  capacity,  and  under  its 
ordinary  call,  it  never  represented  the  sovereign  power  which  created  the  Church  ; 
it  never  was  made  to  be  the  destroyer  of  the  Church  ;  and  it  has  never  had,  in  any 
era,  more  power  to  dissolve  or  to  destroy  the  Church  than  the  General  Government 
has  to-day  to  divide  the  Union  by  a  line  of  partition  drawn  across  it  from  East  to 
West.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  itself  was  created  in  1784,  by  an  extraor- 
dinary and  special  Conference,  convened  for  that  precise  purpose,  under  a  letter  from 
Wesley,  and  in  accordance  with  the  universal  wish  of  Methodism,  lay  and  clerical,  in 
the  United  States.  That  Conference  created  the  Methodist  Church  for  the  whole 
United  States— created  it  to  be  one,  to  exist  forever,  or  while  such  Churches  exist 
upon  the  earth.  When  that  Conference  had  done  its  work  of  creating  the  Church, 
it  retired,  disappeared,  and  has  never  again  been  assembled  in  the  history  of  Method- 
ism. By  virtue  of  that  act  of  creation,  the  Methodist  Church  has  existed  ever  since, 
and  will  exfst  until  another  Conference  called  for  the  purpose,  representing  and  em- 
bodying the  will  of  the  real  sovereign — that  is,  universal  Methodism  as  a  whole — 
shall  decree  its  dissolution ;  and  long,  late,  and  distant  may  that  be.  After  this 
Church  was  created,  it  had,  and  necessarily  must  have  had,  administrative  bodies, 
through  which  in  various  spheres  to  carry  on  its  daily  business.  Such  are  the  officers 
of  the  Church,  such  are  the  annual  conferences,  such  are  the  quarterly  conferences, 
and  such  is,  or  such  at  least  was  in  1792,  the  General  Conference.  These,  all  of  them, 
are  subordinate,  executive  agencies  of  the  principal,  the  constituent — the  Church. 
When  they  are  called  together  in  the  ordinary  way,  and  under  the  ordinary  call,  they 
have  none  of  them  any  more  power  to  destroy  the  original  sovereign  creator  and  con- 
stituent than  an  attorney  employed  to  execute  a  deed  of  land  has  power  to  shoot  his 
principal  through  the  head.  Such  is  our  proposition.  I  now  have  respectfully  to 
ask  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  general  outline  of  proof  by  which  I  shall  endea- 
vour to  establish  it.  I  have  stated  it  as  it  applies  to  every  one  of*  the  conferences, 
and  to  every  one  of  the  eras  of  the  General  Conference.  For  the  discussion  I  must 
to  some  extent  follow  the  example  of  my  learned  brother,  and  consider  the  General 
Conference  as  existing  in  the  Methodist  Church  before  1808  and  after  1808,  which  is 
the  period  when  it  became  strictly  a  representative  body,  called  the  General  Confer- 
ence ;  and  under  that  division  I  mean  to  submit  these  two  propositions  :  in  the  first 
place,  that  the  body  called  the  General  Conference,  meeting  in  its  ordinary  course, 
arid  under  no  extraordinary  call,  instructed  to  do  or  consider  no  specific  or  extraordi- 
nary act,  did  never,  even  before  1808,  have  power  to  divide  the  Church,  or  any  analo- 
gous power,  but  was  strictly  an  administrative  body,  existing  to  govern  a  Church 
which  another  distinct  body  had  previously  created  ;  in  the  second  place,  I  mean  to 
say  that  even  so,  its  actual  administrative  powers  were  reduced  to  some  extent  in 
1808.  I  shall  first  consider  the  earlier  eras  and  first  proposition. 

To  know  what  the  General  Conference  prior  to  1808  was,  what  it  was  created,  and 
what  it  was  authorized  to  do,  I  shall  have  to  treat  the  subject  somewhat  historically. 
The  history  of  the  Conference  before  1808  lies  precisely  in  these  few  facts.  I  will 


267 

present  the  facts  to  the  Court  as  I  suppose  them  to  exist,  and  call  your  Honours'  at- 
tention a  little  more  in  detail  to  the  evidence.  The  history  of  the  Church  before 
1808  stands  on  these  facts,  and  these  alone.  First,  the  creator  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  1784  was  not  a  General  Conference  meeting  in  the  ordinary 
course,  but  it  was  a  power  totally  distinct  from,  and  other  than,  any  General  Confer- 
ence that  was  ever  convened.  It  was  an  extraordinary  body,  such  as  never  assem- 
bled before  or  since,  convened  under  the  apostolical  letter  of  Wesley,  the  real  father 
and  founder  of  Methodism  in  America,  for  the  express  purpose  of  considering  on  the 
organization  of  a  Church  for  a  new  nation,  composed  of  all  the  travelling  preachers 
en  masse,  and  not  of  a  representation  or  delegation,  acting  in  execution  of  a  strong 
and  general  demand  of  the  laity  for  a  Church  that  could  administer  its  own  sacra- 
ments. That  is  my  first  historical  proposition. 

2d.  After  this  body  had  created  the  Church,  it  separated  to  appear  de  facto  no 
more. 

3d.  After  that  attempt  there  was  not,  and  there  never  had  been,  such  a  thing  as  a 
General  Conference,  with  any  recognised  character,  and  duties,  and  powers,  known  to 
Methodism  in  this  country ;  and  there  never  was  a  General  Conference  called  by 
that  name,  and  with  known  and  recognised  powers,  until  the  year  1792.  Advisory 
bodies,  under  the  name  of  regular  conferences,  had  been  called  by  the  general 
assistant  before,  but  with  no  power  of  deciding  in  any  instance  against  his  voice. 

4th.  This  convention  extraordinary  which  made  the  Church,  did  not  provide  for 
any  General  Conference  then  to  exist  in  it  at  all  for  any  purpose,  but  it  set  it  going 
with  an  administrative  economy  made  up  of  various  administrative  agents,  variously 
subordinate — bishops,  annual  conferences,  quarterly  conferences,  and  on  one  occasion 
a  body  called  a  council.  So  it  continued  to  exist  till  1792,  without  any  General  Con- 
ference in  it,  or  about  it,  or  recognised  by  it  at  all. 

5th.  After  some  years'  experience  of  these  administrative  agencies,  in  1792  a 
General  Conference  developed  itself.  The  proper  mode  of  expressing  it,  perhaps, 
would  be  to  say  that  the  General  Conference  was  the  last  and  most  perfect  in  the 
series  of  mere  administrative  agencies.  The  General  Conference  from  this  time 
down  to  1808  was  never  endowed  with  a  particle  of  power  to  dissolve  the  Church, 
with  a  particle  of  analogous  power,  with  a  particle  of  power  to  do  one  act  which  the 
bishop  had  not  done  by  his  own  regular  conference.  So  it  existed  down  to  1808,  and 
at  that  time  these  administrative  functions,  such  as  they  were,  were  actually  reduced 
instead  of  being  enlarged.  In  other  words,  I  shall  say  when  I  come  to  present  the 
proofs  of  it  a  little  more  fully,  that  it  merely  developed  itself  and  took  the  place  of 
the  bishop  and  his  advisers,  and  had  exactly  the  same  power  to  dissolve  the  Church 
which  the  bishop  had,  and  not  one  solitary  particle  more.  I  beg  your  Honours'  par- 
don for  occupying  so  much  time  in  the  narration  of  the  five  great  facts  which  com- 
pose the  history  of  that  period ;  and  now  pardon  me  if  I  trespass  a  little  further  to 
return  and  endeavour  successfully  to  establish  them. 

Who,  then,  created  the  Church  organization  1  That,  I  suppose,  is  the  first  question 
in  an  inquiry  like  this.  Of  course  I  need  not  say  that  it  was  no  such  General  Con- 
ference as  this  that  existed  in  1844 — that  is,  a  body  of  delegated  representatives,  foi 
no  such  Conference  had  before  1808  existed  at  all.  I  should  say,  before  I  proceed  to 
adduce  the  proofs  on  which  I  rely  for  it,  that  the  creator  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  was  an  extraordinary  body,  such  as  had  never  assembled  before,  called  for  a 
convention — under  the  name  of  "  The  General  Conference,''  it  is  true,  but  composed 
of  all  the  travelling  preachers,  not  of  a  part  of  them  selected  by  the  annual  or  the 
quarterly  conferences,  or  otherwise,  of  the  whole  body  of  the  preachers  en  masse. 
This  body  assembled  under  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  of  invitation,  in  accordance  with  the 


268 

general  and  strong  demand  of  the  laity  of  the  country  for  a  separate  organization, 
and  for  a  Church  capable  of  administering  its  own  sacraments.  That  convention, 
thus  composed,  and  thus  called  in  obedience  to  such  a  demand,  created  this  Church. 
The  true  sovereign  then,  I  submit,  the  true  sovereign  by  which  alone  it  was  created, 
and  by  which  alone  it  can  be  destroyed,  may  be  said  to  be  the  preachers  in  a  mass, 
acting  in  obedience  to  the  wishes  of  the  people,  through  the  advice  of  Wesley,  and 
upon  their  own  judgment  of  expediency,  utility,  and  duty,  and  convened  (I  must  not 
allow  to  be  forgotten  for  an  instant)  for  the  express  purpose  of  doing  that  very 
work.  So  that  it  was,  in  a  remarkable  degree,  as  distinguished  from  any  General 
Conference  that  ever  sat  before  or  ever  convened  afterwards,  analogous  to  the  con- 
vention that  created  the  Federal  Constitution  in  1787,  and  the  various  conventions 
which  from  time  to  time  have  been  assembled  to  create  the  various  constitutions  of 
the  several  States.  That  body  was  the  true  creator  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  It  may  be  variously  stated,  but  every  mode  of  statement  is  equally  decisive 
for  the  use  to  which  I  would  hereafter  endeavour  to  apply  it.  It  may  be  stated  that 
the  true  creator  of  the  Church  was  the  general  and  collective  will  of  American  Me- 
thodism, acting  through  the  laity  and  through  the  preachers.  Or  it  may  be  said  that 
it  was  the  collective  will  of  American  Methodism,  expressing  itself  and  acting 
through  an  extraordinary  convention,  called  under  a  letter  of  Mr.  Wesley  for  that 
express  purpose,  which  did  its  work,  and  then  disappeared.  But,  however  it  may  be 
denominated,  I  submit  that  I  am  right,  in  an  abbreviated  and  general  way  of  stating  it, 
in  saying  that  it  was  an  extraordinary  convention  called  for  that  express  purpose,  under 
the  name  of  a  General  Conference,  but  not  in  the  least  degree  resembling  any  Gene- 
ral Conference  convened  before,  or  any  General  Conference  that  has  been  assembled 
from  thai  hour  to  this.  It  was  a  great  ecclesiastical  convention  of  the  Methodists  of 
America. 

This  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  a  question  of  some  importance,  and  that  is 
this  : — it  may  be  said  that,  inasmuch  as  the  body  creating  the  Church  assembled  un- 
der the  name  of  a  General  Conference,  therefore,  wherever  we  find  in  the  history  of 
the  Church,  a  body  sitting  under  the  name  of  General  Conference,  it  may  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  all  the  powers  and  to  be  clothed  with  all  the  authority,  with  the  same 
transcendent  powers,  with  the  original  convention.  In  other  words,  the  argument 
may  be,  that  whereas  this  body,  which  I  have  called  an  extraordinary  convention, 
really  assembled  under  the  name  of  General  Conference,  therefore,  whenever  you 
ifterwards  find  a  body  in  the  Methodist  polity  assembling  under  the  same  denomina- 
tion, it  is  fair  to  presume  that  it  assembles  for  the  same  general  ends,  and  is  clothed 
with  the  same  transcendent  powers.  Now  nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  than  thia  ; 
for  the  second  historical  fact,  to  the  proof  of  which  I  am  now  about  to  ask  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Court,  is,  on  the  contrary,  exactly  this,  that  at  that  time,  1784,  when  this 
body  assembled,  there  existed  no  such  thing  as  a  General  Conference  in  the  Metho- 
dist Church  with  defined  and  recognised  character,  or  with  any  character  or  any 
powers  whatsoever  ;  so  that  this  body  was  not  only  new,  but  was  exactly  and  merely 
a  convention  of  creation  and  of  independency,  no  less  and  no  more.  That  is  the 
second  fact,  and  to  prove  it,  I  shall  have,  perhaps,  to  take  a  little  more  time  than  I 
desire. 

Before  1784,  then,  there  was  nothing  in  the  Methodist  system  in  this  country  un- 
der the  name  of  General  Conference,  or  with  any  recognised  powers  of  any  descrip- 
tion, even  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  Church.  I  think  important  consc- 
quences  flow  from  this  fact,  and  I  shall  therefore  take  pains  to  see  whether  it  is 
control ,  rted  on  the  part  of  the  counsel  for  the  other  side,  and  if  it  be  controverted,  I 
•hall  proceed  to  establish  it  by  the  histories  of  Methodism,  if  they  are  admitted  for 


269 

the  purpose ;  if  they  are  not  admitted,  I  shall  content  myself  with  stating  what  I 
understand  and  am  satisfied  the  historic  fact  really  is,  and  then  to  say  that  the 
plaintiffs  have  the  burden  of  proof  on  this  part  of  the  cause,  and  they  are  to  evince 
the  contrary  if  they  maintain  it. 

It  is  true  then,  that  from  1773 — that  is  the  first  period  to  which  I  go  back — there  were 
occasionally  convened  by  the  general  assistant  of  Mr.  Wesley  hi  this  country,  a  body 
under  the  name  of  regular  conference,  for  the  purpose  of  advising  the  assistant  upon 
the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  That  first  began,  as  far  as  we  can  learn, 
in  1773,  which  is  perhaps  a  date  not  unimportant  for  your  Honours  to  bear  in  mind. 
That  body,  however,  was  simply  an  advisory  body,  and  it  must  be  perfectly  clear  that 
it  had  no  power,  on  any  debatable  matter  at  all  down  to  1784.  And,  extraordinary  as 
it  may  seem,  the  fact  is  indisputable  that  the  general  assistant,  who  convened  it  for 
his  own  advice,  after  he  had  heard  a  matter  debated,  decided  it  for  himself  indepen- 
dent of  the  conference.  Such  continued  to  be  the  state  of  the  case  from  1773  to 
1784.  As  to  the  proofs  of  this,  I  should  begin  first  by  referring  to  the  History  of  the 
Discipline,  page  10,  where  we  find  some  allusion  to  a  conference  of  1773  -,  bat  I  feel 
bound  to  say  that  for  the  complete  exhibition  of  the  evidence  on  this  point,  I  shall 
desire  to  refer  to  Dr.  Bangs's  History  of  the  Methodist  Church,  which  I  suppose  to  be 
an  authoritative  and  satisfactory  account  of  these  proceedings,  and  which  fully  sup- 
ports the  statement  I  have  had  the  honour  to  make.  I  would  turn  your  Honours'  atten- 
tion in  the  first  place,  to  1  Bangs's  History,  page  342,  for  the  general  statement  that  no 
such  thing  as  a  General  Conference,  by  that  name,  ever  existed  in  this  country  until 
1792.  I  refer  to  it  merely  in  proof  of  a  fact  which  is  really  very  well  established  in 
the  History  of  the  Discipline  itself,  that,  down  to  1792,  there  had  been  no  General 
Conference  at  all.  Until  1773,  there  seems  to  have  been  no  sort  of  conference  at 
all.  For  the  purpose  of  showing  the  Court  that  when  after  that  time,  between  1773 
and  1784,  the  general  assistant  called  regular  conferences,  they  were  advisory  only, 
and  had  no  powers  to  pass  on  any  debatable  matter  at  all,  I  refer  to  1  Bangs's  History, 
pages  131  and  132.  That  passage  is  of  so  much  pertinence  and  importance,  that  I 
shall  pause  to  read  it.  He  is  writing  the  History  of  1779  ;  he  has  not  yet  arrived  at 
1784,  but  this  is  subsequent  to  the  calling  of  these  conferences.  What  he  says, 
therefore,  throws  light  on  their  power  : — 

"  These  resolutions  were  adopted  at  the  conference  held  at  Judge  White's,  in  the 
State  of  Delaware.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  they  were  not  in  the  habit  at  that  tune 
of  determining  debatable  questions  by  a  majority  of  votes  ;  but,  in  imitation  of  the 
practice  of  Mr.  Wesley,  after  hearing  all  that  could  be  said  pro  and  con,  the  presiding 
officer  decided  the  point." 

In  confirmation  of  that  fact,  and  for  the  purpose  of  showing  how  it  probably  had 
its  origin,  I  will  make  two  references  to  different  parts  of  the  History  of  the  Disci- 
pline, and  then  leave  the  subject.  In  1773,  History  of  Discipline,  page  10.  it  is  re- 
corded that — 

"  At  the  first  conference  held  in  Philadelphia,  June  1773,  the  following  queries 
were  proposed  to  every  preacher : — 

,  "  Quest.  1.  Ought  not  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  that  conference  to  extend  to 
the  preachers  and  people  in  America,  as  well  as  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland 7 

"Ans.  Yes." 

So  that  the  real  truth  of  the  matter  is,  that  by  an  ordinance  of  the  first  conference 
of  1773,  the  proceedings  of  subsequent  conferences  and  Methodist  denomination  in 
this  country  were  subject  to  the  determination  of  Mr.  Wesley's  con fe-r aces  in 
Europe.  Therefore  it  came  to  pass  exactly  as  the  historian  had  recorded  it,  that 

. 


270 

down  to  1784,  these  bodies  were  nothing  but  advisory  bodies,  without  any  power  to 
decide  a  matter  which  was  debatable.  I  will  not  trouble  your  ftonours  with  any 
further  references  or  citations  to  establish  that  proposition.  I  think  it  will  not  be 
controverted. 

Now  it  follows  from  this  that  the  body  which  in  1784  created  the  Church  was,  as 
I  have  denominated  it,  a  new  and  extraordinary  body,  called  for  a  new  and  extraor- 
dinary purpose,  and  under  a  new  name  in  that  Church ;  because,  as  I  have  shown, 
down  to  that  time  a  General  Conference  had  never  existed,  and  the  regular  confer- 
ences that  existed  had  been  advisory  bodies,  without  the  slightest  power  of  determina- 
tion. 

The  next  important  fact  is,  that  this  body,  which  thus  created  the  new  Church, 
then  retired,  and  did  not  create  or  provide  for  any  General  Conference  at  all,  even  to 
administer  its  affairs.  This  is  a  fact  of  very  great  importance,  and  when  I  come  by- 
and-by  to  apply  it  to  an  important  problem,  i.e.,  with  what  powers  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1792  came  into  existence,  I  think  it  will  be  found  to  throw  very  great  light 
on  that  inquiry.  The  fact  is,  that  this  General  Conference  of  1784  did  not  create  or 
provide  any  General  Conference  even  to  administer  its  affairs  ;  but  on  the  contrary 
it  seems  to  have  assumed  that  the  administration  would  be  carried  along  very  well 
by  the  annual  conferences,  and  quarterly  conferences,  and  the  officers  of  the  Church. 
In  point  of  fact,  therefore,  there  was  no  General  Conference  in  the  Church  to  do  any- 
thing under  any  name.  The  amount  of  the  matter  is,  that  this  extraordinary  conven- 
tion made  it  at  first,  set  it  in  operation,  with  a  bishop,  and  with  annual  conferences  and 
quarterly  conferences  to  advise  him  as  to  its  administrative  economy.  Therefore 
your  Honours  will  see  that  the  General  Conference  of  1792,  which  is  relied  upon  as 
starting  all  at  once  into  existence  with  power  to  destroy  the  Church,  did  not  origin- 
ally even  come  into  the  contemplation  of  the  plan  for  creating  the  Church  and  pro- 
viding for  its  administration,  for  it  started,  and  began,  and  proceeded  eight  years 
unattended  and  unaided  by  a  solitary  particle  of  administrative  agency,  except  its 
bishop  and  its  annual  and  quarterly  conferences,  and  for  a  very  brief  period  a  body 
called  a  council,  to  which  I  shall  call  attention  in  a  moment.  This  fact  is  not  con- 
troverted by  anybody.  Everybody  agrees  that  no  General  Conference  existed  until 
1792.  What  was  the  administrative  economy  of  the  Church  during  this  time  1  A 
bishop  at  its  head,  quarterly  conferences  and  annual  conferences,  that  is  to  say, -local 
assemblages  called  from  time  to  time  by  the  bishop  to  give  him  advice,  composed  the 
entire  administrative  economy  of  this  Church,  from  1784  to  1792,  and  in  the  contem- 
plation of  its  creators  seems  to  have  been  thought  likely  to  be  enough  for  the  Church 
in  all  periods.  The  bishop  from  time  to  time  in  these  annual  conferences,  and  in 
these  quarterly  conferences,  and  in  his  regular  conferences,  if  he  chose  to  call  them, 
conversed  with  them  on  changes  of  Discipline  which  he  proposed  to  introduce  ;  and 
if  he  found  by  that  consultation  that  his  changes  would  be  likely  to  be  acceptable  to 
the  body  of  the  Church,  of  his  own  authority  he  changed  the  Discipline.  That  was 
so  for  eight  years  ;  and  those  were  what  we  should  usually  call  the  first  and  purest 
years  of  the  Church,  inasmuch  as  they  were  those  which  immediately  succeeded  its 
creation.  Nay,  so  little  was  a  General  Conference  thought  of  by  the  generation 
of  1784,  that  in  1789 — I  will  show  it  from  the  historian  to  whom  reference  has  been- 
made — it  was  mutually  taken  for  granted  that  a  General  Conference  was  entirely  im- 
practicable, and  therefore,  by  way  of  adding  a  new  administrative  agency  to  the 
Church,  and  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  the  general  will  of  the  Church  more  easily 
and  more  completely,  the  bishop  actually  projected  the  measure  of  a  council, :.  e.,  a 
small  body  that  should  act  and  confer  with  him.  That  proposition  was  adopted,  and 
for  some  time  that  body  and  the  conferences,  annual  and  quarterly,  and  the  bishop 


271 

made  up  the  whole  administrative  polity  of  Methodism.  Let  me  call  your  Honours* 
attention  to  this  administrative  economy  as  I  find  it  in  1  Bangs,  page  302 — a  very 
instructive  chapter,  as  I  regard  it,  for  more  purposes  than  one,  as  I  hope  to  have 
strength  enough  and  voice  enough  to  make  the  Court  understand  before  I  am  through. 
He  says,  speaking  of  1789  : — 

"  Having  thus  noticed  the  progress  of  the  work  of  religion  in  different  parts  of  the 
country,  let  us  return  to  the  doings  of  the  conference.  In  consequence  of  the  exten- 
sion of  the  work  on  every  hand,  spreading  over  such  a  large  territory,  there  were  two 
difficulties  which  arose  in  the  way  of  proceeding  in  the  manner  they  had  done  here- 
tofore. 

"  1.  It  was  very  inconvenient  for  all  the  members  of  the  conference  to  assemble 
together  in  one  place  to  transact  their  business.  Hence,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the 
bishops  had  appointed  several  separate  conferences  for  the  despatch  of  their  ordinary 
affairs. 

"  2.  But  anything  which  was  done  in  these  separate  conferences  was  not  binding, 
except  simply  the  ordinations  and  stationing  the  preachers,  unless  sanctioned  by  them 
all.  And  as  this  could  rarely  be  expected,  constituted  as  human  nature  is,  it  was 
plainly  seen  that  there  was  danger  of  their  falling  to  pieces,  or  of  their  having  divers 
administrations. 

"  To  provide  against  this  evil,  and  to  remedy  the  inconvenience  above  mentioned, 
it  was  determined  this  year,  as  the  best  thing  which  could  be  devised,  to  have  a 
council,  for  the  reasons  and  purposes,  and  with  the  powers  set  forth  in  the  following 
questions  and  answers  : — 

" '  Questions.  Whereas  the  holding  of  General  Conferences  on  this  extensive  conti- 
nent would  be  attended  with  a  variety  of  difficulties,  and  many  inconveniences  to  the 
work  of  God  ;  and  whereas  we  judge  it  expedient  that  a  council  should  be  formed  of 
chosen  men  out  of  the  several  districts,  as  representatives  of  the  whole  connexion,  to 
meet  at  stated  times  ;  in  what  manner  is  this  council  to  be  formed,  what  shall  be  its 
powers,  and  what  further  regulations  shall  be  made  concerning  it  V  " 

The  Court  will  have  been  struck,  I  am  sure,  by  the  recital  of  the  impracticability 
of  holding  General  Conferences  to  collect  the  general  will  for  the  administration  of 
ordinary-  affairs.  Therefore  the  idea  of  a  council  develops  itself.  The  answer  to 
the  question  then  is  : — 

"  Answer.  1st.  Our  bishops  and  presiding  elders  shall  be  the  members  of  this 
council ;  provided,  that  the  members  who  form  the  council  be  never  fewer  than  nine. 
And  if  any  unavoidable  circumstance  prevent  the  attendance  of  a  presiding  elder  at 
the  council,  he  shall  have  authority  to  send  another  elder  out  of  his  own  district  to 
represent  him  ;  but  the  elder  so  sent  by  the  absenting  presiding  elder  shall  have  no 
seat  in  the  council  without  the  approbation  of  the  bishop,  or  bishops,  and  presiding 
elders  present.  And  if,  after  the  above-mentioned  provisions  are  complied  with,  any 
unavoidable  circumstance,  or  any  contingencies,  reduce  the  number  to  less  than  nine, 
the  bishop  shall  immediately  summon  such  elders  as  do  not  preside,  to  complete  the 
number. 

"  2dly.  These  shall  have  authority  to  mature  everything  they  shall  judge  expedient. 
1.  To  preserve  the  general  union.  2.  To  render  and  preserve  the  external  form  of 
worship  similar  in  all  our  societies  through  the  continent.  3.  To  preserve  the  essen- 
tials of  the  Methodist  doctrines  and  discipline  pure  and  uncorrupted.  4.  To  correct 
all  abuses  and  disorders ;  and,  lastly,  they  are  authorized  to  mature  everything  they 
may  see  necessary  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  and  for  the  promoting  and  improving 
our  colleges  and  plan  of  education. 

"  3dly.  Provided  nevertheless,  that  nothing  shall  be  received  as  the  resolution  of 
the  council,  unless  it  be  assented  to  unanimously  by  the.  council ;  and  nothing  so  as- 
sented to  by  the  council  shall  be  binding  in  any  district,  till  it  has  been  agreed  upon 
by  a  majority  of  the  conference  which  is  held  for  that  district." 

This  council,  thus  and  then  and  upon  that  policy  created,  existed  but  a  little  while  ; 
but  as  it  was  really  the  predecessor  of  the  General  Conference  proper,  and  was  the  first 
large  or  general  administrative  body  ever  collected  under  the  new  Church,  I  believe 


272 

your  Honours  will  be  inclined  to  say  the  child  was  the  father  of  the  man  in  this 
instance.  And  when  you  come  by-and-by,  when  we  arrive  at  1792,  to  inquire  with 
what  scope  of  power  the  General  Conference  then  met,  you  will  regard  as  a  fact  of 
extraordinary  importance,  not  to  say  decisive  interest,  that  it  was  immediately  prece- 
ded in  this  very  line  of  development  of  administrative  agency  by  a  bishop's  council 
intended  to  collect  the  general  will.  There  will  not  be  a  particle  of  doubt  left  on  the 
mind  of  any  fair  historical  inquirer,  that  there  never  was  the  least  intention,  from  1792 
to  1808,  to  clothe  the  General  Conference  with  a  scintilla  of  authority  more  than  was 
given  to  the  bishop's  council.  It  is  for  that  reason,  that  I  have  somewhat  solicitously 
called  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  powers  and  objects  of  the  council,  as  they  are 
stated  in  Dr.  Bangs's  History.  The  first  is,  to  promote  the  general  union.  They 
were  not  creating  a  body  to  provide  means  for  facilitating  the  destruction  and  disrup- 
tion of  the  Church,  but  simply  and  solely,  when,  after  having  provided  a  series  of 
administrative  agency  that  had  worked  well,  outgrowing  its  infancy,  the  Church  de- 
manded something  more,  this  further  administrative  agency  was  provided,  to  collect 
the  general  will  more  easily,  and  do  greater  service.  Then  and  for  that  purpose,  to 
meet  that  exact  want,  this  council  was  devised  and  introduced.  It  was  tried  for  a 
brief  space  of  time,  and  then  abandoned,  and  in  its  stead  was  substituted  the  Gene- 
ral Conference.  But  I  submit  that  there  cannot  be  a  particle  of  doubt  that  it  was 
intended  to  have,  and  did  have,  through  its  brief  period  of  somewhat  unpopular  exist- 
ence, the  very  same  work  to  do,  and  did  the  very  same  work,  nothing  less  and  nothing 
more,  which  the  General  Conference  which  assembled  in  1792  did.  Therefore  I 
hope  I  shall  be  excused  for  reading  again  the  powers  of  the  bishop's  council,  that 
you  may  see  whether  the  Methodists  at  this  time  were  carving,  and  whether  they 
were  anything  more  than  carving  out,  a  mere  series  of  devices  for  a  more  perfect 
Christian  and  associated  life,  which  the  old  convention  of  1784  organized,  and  organ- 
ized to  exist.  The  powers  of  the  council  are  : — 

"  1.  To  preserve  the  general  union." 

Not  to  destroy  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  to  preserve  the  general  union 
of  the  Church,  simply  and  solely  by  enabling  this  wide-spread  community  to  concen- 
trate their  wills  upon  the  administration  of  its  affairs  from  day  to  day. 

"  2.  To  render  and  preserve  the  external  form  of  worship  similar  in  all  our  societies 
through  the  continent.  3.  To  preserve  the  essentials  of  the  Methodist  doctrines  and 
discipline  pure  and  uncorrupted.  4.  To  correct  all  abuses  and  disorders  ;  and,  lastly, 
they  are  authorized  to  mature  everything  they  may  see  necessary  for  the  good  of  the 
Church,  and  for  the  promoting  and  improving  our  colleges  and  plan  of  education." 

This  council  I  have  said  was  unpopular.  The  next  fact  we  find  is,  that  in  1792  the 
first  General  Conference  ever  convened  in  America  under  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  assembled.  We  find  all  at  once,  in  1792,  that  it  had  been  ordained  by  the 
constituent  body,  by  the  Methodism  of  the  country,  that  from  that  time  forward  such 
a  body  should  assemble  once  in  four  years,  for  the  same  purpose  and  clothed  with  the 
same  powers.  Now  the  problem  is,  with  what  powers,  and  for  what  purposes,  the 
constituent  creator  and  sovereign  of  1792  all  at  once  wakes  up  and  ordains  that  there 
shall  be  in  the  Methodist  ecclesiastical  polity,  from  that  time  forth,  a  General  Confe 
rence,  assembled,  and  sitting,  and  doing  its  work  every  four  years.  I  submit  that 
prima  fade  we  have  established,  that  the  only  purpose  for  which  the  constituent  body 
could  have  all  at  once  called  a  General  Conference  into  existence,  was  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enabling  it  to  act  as  a  body  of  mere  administrative  power,  and  with  no  power 
at  all  beyond  it.  The  sovereign  will  in  1784  had  made  the  Church,  and  set  it  in  ope- 
ration, and  left  it  to  carry  on  its  practical  life  by  officers  and  annual  and  quarterly  con- 


273 

fercnces.  For  some  time  these  answered  that  purpose  very  well.  In  the  progress 
of  events  it  was  found  that  a  council  would  be  a  convenient  addition  to  the  existing, 
appointed  series  of  administrative  devise,  and  thereupon  a  council  was  created  ;  but 
nobody  will  pretend,  that  in  creating  a  council  they  meant  to  go  beyond  the  creation 
of  a  mere  administrative  body,  with  no  more  power  to  dissolve  the  Church  than  the 
bishop  had.  That  body  was  unpopular,  and  did  its  work  but  for  a  little  time.  Then 
comes  the  General  Conference.  Prima  facie,  I  submit  that  the  very  date  of  its  birth, 
the  very  order  in  which  it  comes  into  existence  in  the  series  of  administrative  agen- 
cies, the  very  fact  that  the  great  want  of  the  Church  at  that  time  was  not  a  power  to 
destroy,  but  a  power  to  administer,  the  very  fact  that  the  Church  was  already  cre- 
ated, and  set  going  forever,  shows  that  the  General  Conference  came  into  existence 
as  an  administrative  body,  and  an  administrative  body  alone.  This  is  the  inference 
the  historian  would  make,  if  he  were  to  inquire  into  the  matter  independent  from  this 
controversy.  This  is  the  inference,  I  think,  which  this  Court  will  make.  It  actually 
was  created  to  be,  and  became  to  be,  just  what  we  should  infer  from  the  historic 
facts — the  time  when  it  came  into  existence,  the  order  in  which  it  stood,  and  was  pro- 
bably designed.  I  have  a  right  to  stop  here,  and  call  on  the  counsel  on  the  other 
side  for  a  particle  of  proof,  that  the  prima  facie  inference  is  not  the  true  inference  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  General  Conference.  I  call  upon  them  now  to 
exhibit  to  the  Court  one  solitary  scrap  of  proof,  that  the  General  Conference  of  to-day 
possesses  a  particle  more  power  than  the  bishop's  council  of  yesterday.  I  press 
them  on  the  historical  question.  If  it  were  a  question  on  the  history,  of  Rome,  to  be 
illustrated  by  a  Niebuhr,  or  by  a  Neander  on  the  history  of  the  Church,  I  respectfully 
submit  that  it  is  perfectly  manifest  as  a  solution  of  the  historical  problem,  having  re- 
gard to  the  dates  and  series  of  events  and  the  demands  of  the  Church,  that  at  the 
time  the  General  Conference  came  into  existence,  it  was  just  exactly  what  the 
bishop's  council  had  been,  what  the  bishop  had  been,  what  the  annual  and  quarterly 
conferences  had  been — administrative  functionaries,  but  neither  creators,  nor  de- 
stroyers, nor  participators  in  a  particle  of  that  transcendent  power.  I  call  then  on 
the  other  side  for  a  historical  deduction  ;  and  I  have  only  to  submit,  and  I  demand 
judgment  for  the  defendants  in  this  case  on  it,  for  it  puts  an  end  to  this  controversy, 
that  the  plaintiffs  have  not  furnished  your  Honours  with  a  solitary  particle  of  proof, 
to  show  that  the  powers  taken  by  the  General  Conference  exceeded  those  which  I 
have  been  attempting  to  present. 

Then  where  is  the  proof  to  come  from  1  There  are  only  two  sources  of  evidence. 
They  may,  in  the  first  place,  call  attention  to  the  Discipline  of  1792,  to  find  there 
written  a  code  defining  the  powers  of  the  General  Conference.  It  is  silent  on  the 
matter.  There  is  not  one  word  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  not  one  word  in  the 
v/ritten  constitution,  showing  with  what  powers  the  constituents,  in  1792,  intended  to 
invest  this  body  at  the  time  it  was  called  into  existence. 

Then  we  are  driven  to  the  other  source  of  inquiry.  How  are  we  to  ascertain  the 
powers  possessed  1  By  looking  only  at  the  powers  which  it  put  in  exercise.  The 
Court  are,  therefore,  simply  on  these  proofs,  which  the  parties  on  both  sides  lay  before 
them,  to  see  if  the  General  Conference,  from  1792  to  1808,  ever  dreamed,  so  far  as 
Hs  powers  and  intentions  can  by  possibility  be  conjectured,  that  they  were  clothed 
with  a  solitary  particle  of  power  beyond  the  authority  possessed  by  the  bishop's 
council,  which  preceded  it.  On  the  contrary,  the  General  Conference  went  on  in 
the  path  of  the  bishop's  council  and  the  annual  and  quarterly  conferences.  We  find 
it  going  on,  in  the  same  useful,  but  well-defined  and  comparatively  humble  path  of 
mere  administrative  service.  We  find  it  here  and  there  making  changes  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Church,  and  those  not  considerable  changes.  I  submit  that  not  one 


274 

act  of  a  higher  degree  of  power  was  done  in  this  period,  and  that  nothing  was  done 
by  the  General  Conference,  from  1792  to  1808,  which  had  not  been  done  over  again 
in  the  period  which  preceded  it.  Therefore,  unless  the  learned  counsel  are  prepared 
to  say,  that  the  bishop's  council,  before  1792,  could  have  dissolved  the  Church,  the; 
plaintiffs  have  not  presented  a  scrap  of  evidence  that  the  General  Conference,  after 
1792,  could  dissolve  the  Church. 

The  only  answer  I  heard  suggested  to  this  by  my  learned  brother  was,  that  this 
Conference  must  have  had  all  power  to  dissolve  the  Church,  because  it  was  com- 
posed of  all  the  preachers.  Because  it  was  composed  of  all  the  preachers,  did  it  neces- 
sarily have  power  to  destroy  the  Church  1  On  the  contrary,  I  suppose  the  question 
is  exactly  this  :  With  what  powers,  and  for  what  purposes,  do  flie  preachers  appear 
to  have  decided,  all  at  once,  to  introduce  and  establish  a  General  Conference  1  That 
is  the  question.  The  question  is  not,  whether  all  the  preachers,  assembled  under  a 
special  call  for  that  purpose,  might  or  might  not,  at  any  period  before  1808,  pull 
down  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  That  is  not  the  question.  The  question  is, 
for  what  purposes,  and  with  what  powers,  they  decided,  in  point  of  fact,  that  they 
would  at  once  introduce,  and  make  part  of  their  regular  polity,  a  General  Conference  1 
We  do  not  advance  one  solitary  step  to  the  solution  of  that,  by  being  told  that  all  the 
preachers  were  members  of  that  Conference.  Suppose  they  were.  The  very  last 
thing  they  might  have  dreamed  of  on  earth  would  be  all  at  once  to  set  going  a  body 
that  should  have  power  to  destroy  the  Church.  They  might  have  introduced  such  a 
General  Conference  beyond  all  doubt ;  but  the  question  is,  whether  they  did  so  in 
point  of  fact.  For  the  proof  of  that  we  have  to  go  back  again  to  the  language  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Church,  in  which  there  is  not  a  word  about  it  from  beginning  to 
end. 

I  therefore  submit,  with  very  great  confidence,  at  least  so  much  as  this,  that  the 
plaintiffs  have  entirely  failed  to  show  that  even  before  1808  this  General  Conference 
could  ecclesiastically  work  a  division  of  the  Church.  There  is  an  utter  failure  to 
show  it  in  point  of  fact.  We  deny  it  by  our  answer.  The  fair  result  of  the  historical 
investigation  seems  to  be  that  they  did  not  possess  it ;  and  unless  it  be  held  that  be- 
cause the  preachers  might  have  clothed  it  with  all  powers,  they  necessarily  decided 
so  to  clothe  it,  there  is  a  total  failure,  as  far  as  I  can  see,  of  this  part  of  the  plaintiffs' 
case. 

The  hour  of  adjournment  having  arrived,  the  Court  adjourned  until  to-morrow 
morning. 

SEVENTH  DAY.— TUESDAY,  MAY  27™,  1851. 

MR.  CHOATE  resumed, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  if,  on  this  review,  or  any 
review  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  Conference  of  1792,  the  Court  should 
be  of  the  opinion  that  it  is  a  probable  inference  that  that  Conference  came  into  existence 
as  a  mere  body  of  administration — the  last  and  ripest  of  the  series  of  administrative 

agencies then  the  case  on  this  point  is  ended.     If  your  Honours  should  only  doubt 

on  that  question,  the  case  on  this  point  is  also  ended.  If,  however,  you  are  of  opi- 
nion that  it  has  been  clearly  and  certainly  established  as  a  proposition  of  historical 
fact,  by  the  proper  species  of  evidence,  and  the  requisite  degree  of  it,  that  this  Con- 
ference, ab  origine,  was  clothed  with  these  extraordinary  powers,  then  we  have 
arrived  at  the  question,  whether  or  not  the  same  extraordinary  power  was  bestowed 
upon  the  representative  General  Conference  created  in  18081  This  is  a  mere  matter 
of  intent.  It  all  turns  on  the  single  inquiry,  and  that,  I  think,  is  not  extended  and 

18* 

4 


iiio 

not  difficult,  whether  the  constituency  of  1808  intended,  as  a  matter  of  intent,  to 
clothe  the  General  representative  Conference,  which  it  then,  for  the  first  time,  brought 
into  existence,  with  a  power  to  dissolve  and  destroy,  by  dividing  the  Church.  For, 
I  take  it  that  it  is  a  universal  and  elementary  proposition,  that  the  powers  of  a 
representative  and  delegated  body  are  exactly  what  the  constituent  creator  meant  to 
give  it — no  less  and  no  more.  I  take  this  as  a  universal  and  elementary  proposition, 
running  throughout  all  agency,  as  between  parties  of  substitution,  of  representation, 
of  delegation,  from  the  broadest  to  the  narrowest,  that  the  intention  of  the  constituent 
defines  and  measures  the  power  of  the  delegate.  While  this  is  true,  undoubtedly, 
throughout  the  law  of  agency,  in  a  general  way  this  is  recognised  to  be  true  by  every 
school  of  politics  in  its  application  to  the  highest  departments  of  government  under 
the  constitution.  Even  they  who  hold  that  the  representative  is  not  to  be  palsied  by 
the  will  of  his  constituents,  place  themselves  on  the  broad,  general,  original  ground, 
that  the  constituent,  by  the  act  of  creating  the  representative  function,  at  first  intended 
to  clothe  the  representative,  as  a  matter  of  intent,  with  the  power  and  to  devolve  on 
him  the  duty  of  acting  from  time  to  time,  of  acting  upon  his  own  independent  judg- 
ment, un&fiected  by  the  occasional  interposition  of  the  irregular  and  uninstructed  will 
of  the  constituent.  So  that  I  believe  I  may  submit  it  as  a  doctrine  universally 
accepted,  and  everywhere  applied,  that  the  will  of  the  constituent  is  the  limit  and  the 
measure  of  the  power  of  the  representative. 

Turning,  then,  to  this  transaction  of  1808,  in  search  of  the  intention  of  the  consti- 
tuent, I  do  not  know  that  it  is  not  enough  for  me  to  say  that  I  can  discern  no  trace 
of  an  intention  to  confer  such  power.  Your  Honours  will  find  the  history  of  that 
transaction  on  p.  13  of  Proofs  No.  1.  You  will  there  find  that  the  constituent  body 
began,  in  the  first  place,  by  composing  the  new  representative  General  Conference, 
and  then,  in  article  5,  on  the  same  page,  it  proceeds  to  define  the  power  which  it 
intends  to  confer.  The  language  is  simply  and  exactly — "  The  General  Conference 
shall  have  full  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church." 

Now,  resting  there,  and  not  advancing  to  the  subject  of  the  restrictions  b^-  which 
this  grant  of  power  is  presently  to  be  limited  in  a  very  important  degree,  I  must  say, 
that  I  discern  no  evidence  that  this  bestows  the  capacity  of  destroying  or  dividing 
the  Church  at  all.  On  the  contrary,  what  it  seems  to  me  I  find  the  constituent  body 
doing  is  exactly  this  :  The  Methodism  of  the  United  States  had  long  before  decided 
to  become,  and  to  be  one  Church ;  had,  by  a  paramount  and  fundamental  law, 
ordained  unity  as  the  form  of  its  organic  being ;  and  here,  in  furtherance  and  exe- 
cution of  that  ordination,  it  goes  on  to  create  a  body  which,  under  certain  restrictions 
and  limitations,  shall  make  rules  for  the  guidance  of  the  affairs  of  that  unity  thus 
previously  created,  existing  and  intending  to  exist  indefinitely.  I  deduce  this  as  all 
that  the  constituent  body  intends  to  do  in  the  first  place,  from  the  nature  of  the  act 
that  he  is  doing,  and  from  the  character  of  the  actor  that  is  doing  it.  What  is  the 
act  being  done  1  And  who  is  the  actor  that  does  it  1  An  existing  Church,  already 
a  quarter  of  a  century  old,  created  by  the  general  Methodism,  for  a  life  all  but  per- 
petual on  earth,  having  an  existing  government,  is  found  simply  amending  a  single  fea- 
ture of  that  government.  It  is  found  to  be  doing  nothing  less,  and  nothing  more,  than 
altering  the  third  article  in  the  Discipline  of  the  Conference  which  preceded  it.  I  now 
respectfully  submit  that  from  the  act  which  is  being  done  and  the  actor  who  is  doing 
it,  from  the  nature  of  the  act  and  the  actor,  the  indefinite  future  existence  of  the 
association  is  properly  assumed  as  a  thing  beyond  controversy,  and  aliunde  estab- 
lished and  settled ;  and  therefore  the  implication  is  simply  this — that  whereas  here 
is  a  Church,  to  exist  long,  if  not  forever,  and  to  its  administration  and  government  a 
General  Conference  is  needful,  they  proceeded  to  constitute  such  a  General  Confer- 


276 

ence,  with  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  it  during  its  whole  life.  That,  I 
submit,  is  the  implication  which  inevitably  results  from  the  nature  of  the  act  and  the 
character  of  the  actor.  However  broad  are  the  terms  in  which  the  power  is  bestowed 
upon  the  General  Conference,  it  is  all  at  last  to  be  considered  secundum  subjectam 
matcriam — it  is  all  to  be  taken  back,  and  rendered  ad  hoc  and  ad  rent.  It  is  to  be 
considered  at  last,  however  broad  the  terms  in  which  it  is  conveyed,  as  an  auxiliary 
and  administrative  power  alone.  Why,  is  it  not  so  throughout  the  whole  range  of 
analogous  law  1  A  power  of  attorney  may  be  conveyed  in  language  the  broadest, 
putting  the  agent,  apparently  in  all  things,  in  the  condition  of  the  constituent — but  it 
only  means  at  last  that  he  shall  have  power  within  the  specific  agency,  and  for  that 
particular  constituent.  A  partnership  makes  an  agent  with  the  amplest  authority, 
but  he  is  not  to  dissolve  the  partnership ;  his  powers  are  to  be  taken  to  be  for  the 
partnership,  and  under  the  partnership,  and  in  aid  of  the  partnership  ;  he  is  not  to 
alter  the  identity  of  his  constituent,  or  put  an  end  to  his  civil  life.  A  corporation,  to 
pursue  the  same  analogy,  creates  a  board  of  directors,  with  power  to  make  rules  and  regu- 
lations, and  by-laws,  for  the  corporation.  Would  any  body  suppose  they  had  power 
to  dissolve  the  corporation  and  surrender  its  charter  1  Why,  of  course,  the  consti- 
tuent was  not  dreaming  of  a  dissolution.  He  reserved  all  that  power  and  all  that 
subject-matter  to  his  own  control ;  he  expects  to  live  a  corporate  immortality,  and  on 
that  idea  he  hires  a  servant  to  enable  him  to  live  while  he  lives. 

I  deduce  the  same  conclusion  in  the  next  place  from  the  language  in  which  this 
power  is  bestowed  upon  the  General  Conference.  They  are  "to  have  full  powers  to 
make  rule*  and  regulations."  For  what1?  For  Methodism  1  Certainly  not.  For 
Wesleyanibm  1  Certainly  not.  Rules  and  regulations  for  the  promulgation  anrt 
spread  of  Methodism  by  the  destruction  of  the  Methodist  Church  1  Not  at  all.  But 
"  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church" — affectionately  and  specifically — rules  and 
regulations  for  Methodism  through  our  Church,  through  and  by  that  specific  instru- 
mentality. They  are  to  have  power  not  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the 
destruc^on  of  the  Church,  but  for  the  Church.  •  That  is  to  say,  they  shall  rule  it,  it 
being  all  the  while  an  existing  thing.  Who  could  possibly  mistake  such  language 
as  this,  if  it  were  found  in  any  other  connexion,  or  on  a  question  anything  less  than 
the  momentous  one  which  now  engages  this  Court  ?  If  we  found  the  phrase  "  rules 
and  regulations  for  our  firm,"  "rules  and  regulations  for  our  corporation,"  would  not 
everybody  understand,  as  a  matter  of  course,  that  it  meant  rules  and  regulations 
whereby  "  our  firm,"  undissolved,  "  our  corporation,"  undismembered,  should  go  on, 
and  order  its  existing  and  identical  life  1 

I  had  not  the  honour  to  be  present  and  hear  the  commentary  made  the  other  day, 
by  one  of  the  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side,  upon  a  case  from  1st  Peters,  which, 
I  believe,  is  to  be  cited  and  commented  upon.  It  is  founded  on  language  in  the  Con- 
•titution,  supposed  to  be  somewhat  analogous  to  the  grant  of  power  to  the  General 
Conference,  but  which,  I  think,  the  learned  and  eminent  counsel  must  admit  to  be 
substantially  unlike.  I  will  not  pause  to  comment  on  the  language  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  my  learned  friend  knows  that  the  subject-matter  of  the  "  rules  and  regula- 
tions" referred  to  in  the  Constitution,  makes  all  the  difference  in  the  world.  Con- 
gress is  to  have  power  to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  territories.  What  is  to 
be  done  with  territories  1  Instead  of  being  preserved  in  an  existing  and  inflexible 
identity,  the  territory  is  to  undergo  a  thousand  changes.  It  must  undergo  a  thousand 
transformations  before  it  can  reach  and  achieve  the  grand  uses  for  which  it  has  been 
spread  out  westward.  It  must  be  cut  in  two  ;  it  must  be  made  into  lots  ;  it  must 
be  built  up  by  the  hand  of  man  ;  it  must  be  broken  up  into  plantations  "and  into 
States,  and  then,  at  last,  it  reaches  its  ultimate  destination.  Rules  and  regulations 


277 

for  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  I  submit,  imply  necessarily  that  they  are  to  be 
rules  and  regulations  that  are  to  attend  it  through  a  thousand  metamorphoses,  enlarg- 
ing, diminishing,  changing,  until  it  reaches  its  ultimate  destiny.  The  Church,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  a  perfect  identity  at  the  beginning  ;  to  translate  into  English  a 
familiar  expression,  it  is  "  a  fact  accomplished  ;"  it  is  intended  to  exist  until  the  end 
of  time,  enlarging  and  beautifying  itself,  if  you  please,  but  its  identity  forever  unaf- 
fected, and  all  for  an  ulterior  and  specific  end.  Before  I  leave  the  argument,  which 
I  do  not  intend  to  extend,  and  on  which  I  have  only  entered  and  generally  indicated, 
of  the  intention  of  the  constituent  body  in  1792  and  1808,  to  bestow  a  power  of  de- 
struction, I  should  like  to  ask  my  learned  friends  on  the  other  side,  if,  in  the  course 
of  their  researches,  they  have  found  any  breaking  out  of  a  dira  cupido  for  destruction 
in  the  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  whether  or  not,  beginning  in 
1784,  and  coming  down  to  1792  and  1808,  they  find  men's  thoughts  began  to  be 
directed  to  the  importance  of  facilitating  the  means  of  breaking  the  charmed  unity, 
and  converting  the  Church  into  two,  or  two  thousand ;  because,  I  admit,  that  if  they 
can  find  historical  evidence  that  the  Methodist  mind  was  taking  such  a  direction  as 
that,  we  should  be  led  the  more  readily  to  anticipate  that  this  intention  was  carried 
out  by  lodging  such  a  power  of  destruction  in  the  bishop's  council,  or  in  the  Con- 
ference of  1808.  So  far  from  that  being  the  case,  however,  is  it  not  most  striking 
and  beautiful,  that  the  very  preamble  by  which  the  Constitution  of  1808  was  ushered 
into  existence — I  have  it  here  in  2  Bangs's  Hist.,  p.  229 — solves  this  problem,  and 
answers  the  question  which  I  have  referred  to  my  learned  friends  1  Before  I  read 
that  preamble,  let  me  remind  the  Court  that  the  very  problem  which  we  are  now  in- 
vestigating is,  whether  that  constituent  body  was  then  about  lodging  in  the  General 
Conference  a  power  to  destroy  the  Church.  The  preamble  is : — 

"  Whereas,  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  the  doctrine,  form  of  government, 
\nd  general  rules  of  the  United  Societies  in  America,  be  preserved  sacred  and  invio- 
lable ;  and  whereas,  every  prudent  measure  should  be  taken  to  preserve,  strengthen, 
and  perpetuate  the  union  of  the  Connexion." 

Therefore  do  they  on  that  policy  proceed  to  clothe  a  body  with  power  to 
destroy  the  Church?  Certainly  not.  Before  I  leave  this  matter,  I  wish  to 
notice  another  topic,  and  the  subject  of  the  restrictions  on  the  power  of  the 
General  Conference.  I  have  thus  far  been  considering  it,  independent  of  the 
restrictions.  *upon  the  general  ground  of  power.  I  respectfully  submit,  as  I  take 
my  leave  of  this  part  of  the  argument,  that  if  any  doubt  existed,  it  is  removed  by 
the  language  of  these  restrictions.  My  learned  brother  was  pleased  to  say,  that 
there  was  no  prohibition  in  these  restrictions  against  dissolving  and  destroying  the 
Church.  I  respectfully  submit,  that  that  is  because  no  grant  of  power  had  been 
previously  given  or  dreamed  to  be  given,  which  could  be  supposed  capable  of  being 
tormented  into  a  power  to  divide  the  Church.  But  I  meet  my  learned  friend  beyond 
that  suggestion,  by  inquiring  how  we  shall  possibly  account  for  it,  that  an  assembly 
of  intelligent  men,  not  to  say  men  fit  to  be  out  of  Bedlam,  should  have  set  them- 
selves to  work,  more  like  the  philosophers  of  Lilliput,  than  the  intelligence  and 
character  of  a  great  denomination  like  this,  to  restrain,  as  they  have  done  here  in 
half  a  dozen  articles  of  restriction,  the  exercise  of  powers  comparatively  subordinate, 
and  leave  so  tremendous  a  power  as  this  unrestrained  ?  how  they  should  sedulously 
and  laboriously  prohibit  by  all  manner  of  man-traps  and  springs,  the  cutting  off  of 
this  leaf  or  that  twig,  and  yet  leave  the  party  entirely  at  liberty  to  pluck  up  the 
noble  tree  by  the  roots  1  In  the  humour  of  restraining,  would  they  not  restrain  the 
larger  and  more  formidable  power  1  If,  as  the  historian  tells  us,  to  preserve  the 


278 

unity  of  the  Church,  they  thought  it  needful  so  anxiously  to  guard  its  Discipline 
from  change,  the  rules  of  its  societies  from  change,  the  plan  of  its  episcopacy  from 
change,  would  they  leave  power  to  make  a  direct  attack  on  unity  itself  1  I  submit, 
that  the  inconsistency  of  such  a  proceeding  refutes  the  argument.  Look  at  it.  The 
General  Conference  shall  not  have  power  to  alter  the  articles  of  religion,  but  they 
may  alter  the  Church ;  they  shall  not  change  the  creed,  but  they  may  kill  the 
believer ;  they  shall  not  alter  the  Discipline,  but  they  may  create  two  Churches  or 
two  thousand  Churches,  every  one  of  whom  may  go  off ;  as  I  read  in  the  newspapers 
the  other  day, — I  hope  it  was  not  true, — that  they  had  already  in  South  Carolina  altered 
that  very  Discipline  in  face  of  the  Discipline  which  was  produced  before  this  Court ; 
they  shall  not  deprive  an  individual  member  of  his  right  of  trial  and  appeal  in  this 
Church,  but  they  may  send  them  off  by  thousands  and  thousands  without  trial ;  they 
shall  not  so  alter  the  plan  of  episcopacy,  as  to  say  to  a  Northern  bishop,  "  You 
shall  only  go  to  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line  on  your  way  South,"  and  to  the  Southern 
bishop,  "  You  shall  only  go  to  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line  on  your  way  North,"  but 
they  may  with  great  constitutional  propriety  say  to  the  Northern  bishop,  "  When  you 
go  to  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line  you  shall  find  no  Church  beyond  it,"  and  to  the  South- 
ern bishop  travelling  this  way  with  scrip  and  sandal,  "  You  shall  find  no  Church 
north  of  it."  I  respectfully  submit,  that  such  inconsistencies  as  these  could  not 
possibly  have  been  entertained  and  embodied  by  men  fit  to  represent  the  grand  con- 
structive intellect  of  Wesley,  and  perpetuate  a  system,  giving  him  a  fame  among 
the  builders  of  mitres. 

So  much  for  the  law  of  1808.  Is  any  light  thrown  on  this  interesting  inquiry  by 
what  has  happened  since  1808T  Now  there  are  only  three  occasions  on  which  any- 
thing has  been  done  which  anybody  supposes  throws  any  light  on  the  subject  of  the 
inquiry.  They  are, — 1st,  the  Canada  case ;  2d,  the  action  of  this  very  body  in 
1844;  and  3d,  the  action  of  our  own  body  in  1848.  I  begin  for  a  moment  or  two 
with  a  few  words  on  the  Canada  case. 

I  respectfully  submit,  that  the  Canada  case  affords  evidence  perfectly  conclusive 
10  show  that  they  had  not  this  power  in  point  of  fact.  What  was  this  Canada  case  ? 
It  was  this  exactly.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  its  origin  was  created 
by  the  Methodism  of  the  United  States,  in  consequence  of  the  independence  of  the 
United  States,  in  and  for  the  United  States  alone.  Expansive  as  they  have  been, 
the  Methodist  Church,  from  the  nature  of  its  constitution,  and  in  point  of  fact, 
although  the  very  day  it  came  into  existence  it  spread  itself  to  the  limits  of  the 
territory  of  the  United  States,  yet  it  has  never  exceeded,  and  it  could  not  exceed  the 
limits  of  that  territory  for  a  hair's  breadth.  It  may  go  up  to  the  line  ;  it  may  meet 
on  the  other  side  of  the  line  a  separate  and  independent  Methodist  Church,  and  they 
may  shake  hands  across  the  line  ;  they  may  organize  by  agreement  or  compact  a 
connexion,  but  there  it  ends.  There  it  is,  and  there  it  will  remain,  nothing  in  the 
world  but  an  American  Methodist  Church  in  league  or  in  treaty  with  a  foreign  and 
equally  independent  Methodist  Church  on  the  other  side  of  our  frontier  line.  That 
is  the  condition  of  the  Methodist  polity.  I  deduce  it  from  the  letter  of  Wesley,  who 
says,  that  in  consequence  of  the  unexpected  independence  of  this  nation,  he  gives  it 
a  separate  Church.  Wesley,  as  everybody  knows,  through  important  periods  of  his 
Ufe,  clung  fast  to  the  old  Church  of  England,  and  left  it  with  reluctance.  He  be- 
stowed the  boon  of  a  new  Church  upon  American  Methodism  with  reluctance,  and 
he  limited  the  precious  grant  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  that  necessity,  blessed 
be  God !  was  a  pretty  ample  and  energetic  necessity  in  American  independence. 
He  gave  it  no  further  than  the  limits  of  the  United  States. 

The  same  thing  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Church  was  created  by  American 


If- 

279 

citizens.  The  Conference  of  1784,  which  I  denominated  an  extraordinary  conven- 
tion, that  created  it,  was  a  conference  of  American  preachers  alone,  and  no  work 
created  by  their  hands  could  proprio  vigore,  or  by  its  probable  destination,  have  ex- 
istence without  the  United  States.  Your  Honours  cannot,  I  think,  fail  to  remember 
that  significant  recognition  of  the  political  interests  of  these  new  United  States; 
which  they  bring  forward  into  the  very  constitution  of  the  creation  of  the  Church, 
their  measure  and  their,  end,  ultimately  subordinate  to  the  greater  ends  they  had -in 
view.  The  Methodist  Church  then  was  a  Church  for  this  land,  it  was  a  Church  for 
all  of  if:  but  let  that  pass. 

While  this  is  true,  Methodism  from  the  beginning  recognised  the  beautiful  enter- 
prise of  missions,  and  therefore  it  had  always  been  in  the  habit  of  sending  its  mis- 
sionaries, by  their  own  consent,  into  Canada.  There  they  met  a  germ  of  North 
American  Methodism  growing  up  in  Upper  and  Lower  Canada.  An  acquaintance 
was  matured,  and  at  last  it  came  to  pass,  that  the  Canadian  Methodist  Church  con-r 
ceived  a  desire  to  be  connected,  by  such  ties  as  they  thought  appropriate  to  such 
jurisdictions,  with  the  larger  and  more  prosperous  Methodism  of  the  United  States. 
Thereupon,  as  your  Honours  wilt  find  recited  on  every  page  of  these  proofs  which 
contains  the  history  of  the  Canada  case,  a  compact  was  made,  an  agreement  was 
entered  into,  a  league  was  concluded  ;  and  the  result  was,  not  that  the  Church  ex- 
tended itself  to  the  North  pole,  or  to  the  line  of  perpetual  congelation,  not  that  it 
extended  beyond  its  territory,  but  that  it  filled  up  to  the  territory  of  the  Canadian 
Church,  and  that  Church  occupied  the  region  beyond,  and  the  two  then  and  there 
meeting,  formed  this  league  and  brought  themselves  under  that  well-known  rule  of 
law  recognised,  I  believe,  in  2d  Denio,  that  two  Churches  entirely  independent  of 
each  other  may  voluntarily  conclude  a  treaty  of  union,  which  shall  leave  their  iden- 
tity perfectly  distinct,  as  the  sweet  and  bitter  fountains  that  flow  together  without 
mingling,  and  which  union  either  may  terminate  without  schism,  with  or  without 
the  consent  of  the  other.  That  was  exactly  in  ecclesiastical  law,  as  I  understand 
it,  the  condition  of  these  Churches.  As  it  seems  not,  as  a  statement  of  fact,  to  be 
entirely  appreciated  or  admitted  to  be  correct  on  the  other  side,  I  shall  presentlv 
call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  proofs  from  which  I  gather  it.  I  shall  find 
them  on  the  recitals  of  the  gravest  and  most  deliberate  action  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, and  I  apprehend  the  Court  will  receive  them  as  the  very  highest  historical 
evidence  upon  a  historical  inquiry  of  fact.  Such  was  the  transaction. 

In  that  state  of  things  time  passed  on,  and  the  nationality  of  the  Canadas  came  to 
be  a  little  more  developed.  The  political  interests  of  the  two  countries,  which 
Methodism  always  recognises,  and  which  I  commend  to  her  special  care  to-day,  led 
to  a  necessity  for  separation  ;  and  thereupon  Canada  applied  for  a  separation  of  the 
connexion.  Now  we  come  to  the  constructions  of  that  case.  Notwithstanding 
such  had  been  their  relations,  although  this  had  not  been  an  identical  and  homoge- 
neous Church  extended  by  fusion  over  a  common  territory,  but  two  Churches  iden- 
tically distinct,  connected  simply  by  a  conventional  tie,  yet  when  the  Canada  Con- 
ference came  here  to  apply  for  a  dissolution  of  the  connexion,  the  first  judgment  of 
the  General  Conference  was,  that  it  exceeded  their  constitutional  powers  to  grant  it, 
and  they  thereupon  proceeded  to  announce  a  set  of  doctrines,  after  great  deliberation, 
which  give  to  the  winds  the  assumptions  of  the  hasty  and  ill-considered  proceeding 
of  1844.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  reported  by  a  committee  to  which  the  subject 
was  referred,  that  it  was  beyond  the  constitutional  power  of  the  General  Conference 
to  grant  the  request  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  presented.  On  pp.  34,  35  of  Proofs 
No.  1,  your  Honours  will  find,  that  the  committee  on  Canada  affairs,  to  whom  the 
subject  was  referred,  reported  : — 


280 

"  The  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion,  that,  however  peculiar  may  be 
the  situation  of  our  brethren  in  Canada,  and  however  much  we  may  sympathize  with 
them  in  their  present  state  of  perplexity,  this  General  Conference  cannot  consistently 
grant  them  a  separate  Church  establishment,  according  to  the  prayer  of  the  peti- 
tioners. The  committee,  therefore,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  reso- 
lution : — 

"  1.  That,  inasmuch  as  the  several  annual  conferences  have  not  recommended  it  to 
the  General  Conference,  it  is  unconstitutional,  and  also,  under  the  circumstances, 
inexpedient,  to  grant  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  for  a  separate  Church  establish- 
ment in  Upper  Canada." 

The  extreme  anxiety  felt  in  relation  to  the  matter,  and  the  very  kind  acquaintance 
that  seems  to  have  been  entertained,  led  the  Conference  to  hold  the  matter  under 
consideration  ;  and  there  is  very  satisfactory  evidence  to  show  that  it  was  thereupon 
subjected  to  the  best  lights  in  that  Conference,  and  after  several  days  of  deliberation, 
it  was  discovered  that  the  peculiar  relations  between  the  two  Churches,  the  fact  that 
they  did  not  constitute  one  single  homogeneous  and  identical  Church,  but  a  league 
between  two  independent  Churches,  afforded  a  source  of  power,  and  indicated  a 
means  of  escaping  from  the  difficulty.  Therefore  we  find,  on  page  35,  that  the  fol- 
lowing resolve  was  adopted,  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  Ryerson.  This  is  the  second  stage 
to  which  the  deliberations  of  the  Conference  conducted  them : — 

"  Whereas  the  Canada  Annual  Conference,  situated  in  the  Province  of  Upper 
Canada,  under  a  foreign  government,  have,  in  their  memorial,  presented  to  this  Con- 
ference the  disabilities  under  which  they  labour  in  consequence  of  their  union  with  a 
foreign  ecclesiastical  government,  and  setting  forth  their  desire  to  be  set  off  as  a 
separate  Church  establishment ;  and  whereas,  this  General  Conference  disclaim  all 
right  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  under  such  circumstances,  except  by  mu- 
tual agreement : — 

"  Resolved,  therefore,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Con- 
ference assembled,  that  the  compact  existing  between  the  Canada  Annual  Confer- 
ence and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  be,  and  hereby  is, 
dissolved  by  mutual  consent." 

I  need  not  say  this  would  be  most  extraordinary  language  as  applicable  to  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  dealing  with  one  of  its  outlying  conferences.  I  need 
not  say  it  would  not  be  competent,  because  it  would  not  be  historically  true,  in  such 
a  case,  to  talk  of  a  "  union  with  a  foreign  ecclesiastical  government,"  or  of  a  union 
existing  by  means  of  a  "compact"  voluntarily  entered  into.  "Why,  the  union  which 
binds  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  its  identity  and  organism,  is  a  union  de- 
rived from  the  original  act  of  creation,  not  something  done  first,  and  then  that  which 
was  first  created  forming  a  succession  of  leagues  with  various  annual  conferences ; 
but  uno  el  eodemflatu,  by  one  and  the  same  creative  act,  by  the  ordinance  of  the  ex- 
traordinary Convention  assembled  under  the  letter  of  Wesley,  the  Church  instantly 
existed  co-extensive ly  with  the  land,  and  thenceforward  every  annual  conference, 
then  existing  or  ever  afterwards  to  exist,  came  into  being,  not  by  virtue  of  succes 
sive  compacts,  but  under  and  in  obedience  to  the  original  plan  of  growth, — they  were 
nothing  less  and  nothing  more  than  successive  developments  according  to  the  origi- 
nal organic  law. 

I  should  not  care,  for  the  purposes  of  this  discussion,  whether  the  Conference  of 
1828  had  or  had  not  left  the  Canada  case  with  the  passage  of  the  resolution-  which  I 
have  read.  What  do  they  say  by  that  resolution  1  That  they  have  power  to  dis- 
solve the  existing  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1  Nothing  like  it ;  but  they  say,  on 
the  contrary,  "  Whereas  we  have  not  the  constitutional  power  to  do  what  we  first 
thought  was  something  resembling  it,  after  a  week's  study,  and  a  week's  prayer  to 


God,  we  have  found  out  a  legal  method  by  which  we  can  grant  the  prayer  of  the 
petition,  and  yet  abstain  from  doing  anything  resembling,  in  the  least  degree,  a  divi- 
sion of  the  Church ;  for  we  have  discovered  that  it  is  not  one  Church  which  is  to  be 
cut  in  two,  but  only  a  union  between  two  that  is  to  be  divided,  and  we  therefore  do 
it."  How  different  that  is  from  the  power  of  dividing  an  existing  identical  Church 
let  one  illustration  suffice  to  show.  I  suppose  to-day  the  general  government,  with 
all  its  power,  cannot  divide  the  Union  that  is  committed  to  its  care ;  but  I  suppose  it 
very  competent,  indeed,  for  the  general  government,  by  its  appropriate  organ,  the 
treaty-making  power,  or  the  legislative  power,  acting  under  its  commercial  authority, 
to  put  an  end  to  a  treaty  with  England,  or  with  Austria.  Therefore,  it  is  not  com- 
petent for  my  learned  friend  to  argue  that  because  this  Conference  have  put  an  end 
to  a  treaty  with  another  Church,  they  have  the  power  to  divide  their  own  Church. 
But  the  sober  second  thought  of  the  Conference  of  1828  did  not  dare  to  leave  the 
matter  rest  exactly  there,  and  after  some  more  reflection  it  was  discovered  that  even 
to  go  so  far  would  perhaps  be  to  go  too  far ;  and,  therefore,  you  find  its  ultimate 
opinions  on  this  question,  the  result  of  a  great  deal  of  thought,  of  a  great  deal  of 
conscientious  and  charitable  desire  to  grant  the  request,  at  last  embodied  on  page  37 
of  Proofs  No.  1.  The  resolution  on  which  I  have  been  remarking  was  rescinded, 
and  the  ultimate  determination  of  the  Conference  embodied  in  these  words : — 

"  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference 
assembled,  that,  whereas  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America,  has  heretofore  been  extended  over  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers in  connexion  with  said  Church  in  the  Province  of  Upper  Canada,  by  mutual 
agreement,  and  by  the  consent  and  desire  of  our  brethren  in  that  Province ;  and 
whereas  this  General  Conference  is  satisfactorily  assured  that  our  brethren  in  the 
said  Province,  under  peculiar  and  pressing  circumstances,  do  now  desire  to  organize 
themselves  into  a  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  friendly  relations  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States ;  therefore,  be  it  resolved," 

That  if  Canada  will  dissolve  the  treaty,  we  will  send  her  a  bishop,  and  assist  her 
in  organizing  for  the  new  ecclesiastical  life  on  which  she  will  thus  have  resolved  to 
enter. 

There  it  is  exactly.  I  think  no  historical  and  legal  inquirer  can  doubt  that  the  fair 
construction  to  be  gathered  from  the  Canada  case  is,  that  it  denjes  the  power  to  dis- 
solve or  divide  an  identical  Church,  and  the  first  impression  of  the  Conference  was 
that  they  could  not  sever  a  treaty  between  them  and  an  independent  Church,  and  after- 
wards they  thought  that  coijld  be  done,  but  ultimately  they  receded  from  even  that  pro- 
position. That  is  the  whole  of  the  Canada  case.  I  shall  refer  to  it  for  a  moment 
hereafter,  when  I  come  to  its  bearing  on  the  property  question,  but  I  have  addressed 
myself  to  it  now,  only  as  it  might  be  thought  to  throw  light  on  the  judgment  of  the 
Conference  as  to  the  existence  of  a  power  to  divide  the  Church. 

Then,  the  only  other  occasions  on  which  it  may  be  supposed  that  any  light  can  be 
thrown  by  the  action  of  the  General  Conference  on  the  question  which  is  now  the 
subject  of  inquiry,  are  the  proceedings  of  1844  and  1848.  I  did  not  understand  the 
eminent  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs  to  place  great  reliance  on  the  proceedings  of  1844, 
as  evidence  of  the  law.  I  do  not  intend  to  say  anything  disrespectful  to  that  body, 
but  it  is  my  duty  to  remind  the  Court,  that  under  the  circumstances  in  which  it  met  and 
did  its  work,  its  proceedings,  as  evidence  of  the  law,  will  be  considered,  I  think,  by 
no  fair  inquirer  as  entitled  to  any  considerable  degree  of  weight,  when  compared 
with  the  more  deliberate,  and  prolonged,  and  instructive  discussions  and  investiga- 
tions of  the  Conference  of  1828,  on  the  Canada  case.  In  the  first  place,  this  Confer- 
ence of  1844  was  a  body  assembled  in  the  ordinary  way,  so  that,  so  far  as  we  can 


282 

learn,  no  constituent  to  any  member  elected  had  the  slightest  intimation  that  such  a 
transcendent  question  as  this  was  coming  into  consideration  at  all.  Then,  the  trans- 
actions of  that  body  unfitted  them  for  the  deep  and  calm  inquiry.  The  greater  part 
of  the  time  they  were  together  was  occupied  in  debate  touching  the  proceedings  iu 
Bishop  Andrew's  case,  and  when  they  arrived  at  the  close  of  that  discussion,  some- 
what exhausted,  a  little  dispirited  and  peevish,  needing  the  air  of  the  mountain  tops 
and  the  firesides  of  their  own  families  to  restore  them  to  their  habitual  temper,  not 
to  say  free  action  of  the  Methodist  brain,  they  left  themselves  no  time  to  deliberate 
on  this  matter,  for  the  vote  was  taken  on  Bishop  Andrew's  case  on  Saturday,  and  on 
the  next  Saturday  they  cut  the  Church  in  two,  as  a  man  would  serve  a  cucumber, 
and  the  intervening  time  was  occupied  in  writing  the  Protest  and  the  Reply  to  it. 
There  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  a  single  member  of  that  Conference  ever  ir 
his  life,  before  he  came  or  after  he  came,  reflected  for  half  an  hour  on  the  constitu- 
tional question  which  is  to  be  decided  by  this  Bench.  If  I  am  wrong  my  learned 
friend  will  correct  the  statement ;  but  I  repeat,  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  in  their  preparatory  studies,  in  the  annual  conferences,  they  thought  of  it ;  there 
is  not  a  particle  of  evidence  that  there  were  three  lines  in  a  newspaper  preparing  the 
Church  and  the  country  for  this  thunderbolt  out  of  an  unclouded  sky.  They  came 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  business  to  do  ordinary  business,  and  were  not  called  for 
any  extraordinary  purpose.  Being  there,  under  the  circumstances  to  which  I  have 
referred,  the  work  is  done.  Hence,  I  respectfully  submit  that  it  is  not  high  and 
satisfactory  evidence  of  the  law  on  such  a  question  as  this. 

I  ought  to  take  in  this  review,  and  in  answer  to  that  in  some  measure,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  General  Conference  of  1848,  which  declare  a  rule  of  law  directly  the 
other  way,  to  the  end  that  the  Court  may  have  in  a  single  view  all  the  considerations 
which  may  be  deemed  important  on  the  point.  My  learned  brother  does  not  go  fur- 
ther than  I  do  when  he  says,  that  he  who  bereaves  me  of  our  South  bereaves  me  of 
most  precious  and  valued  jewels ;  but  he  goes  a  little  too  far,  when  he  says  that  the 
Conference  of  1848  met  bereaved  and  shorn  of  all  its  strength.  Not  quite  so.  On 
the  contrary,  the  annual  conferences  in  1848  were  most  ably  represented — public 
opinion  had  developed  itself;  men  had  cooled.  That  Conference  stood  on  higher 
ground.  I  agree  that  it  then  had  a  somewhat  sectional  character,  but  I  shall  pray 
your  Honours  by-and-by  to  look  with  some  attention  on  reports  in  that  body  on 
which  we  rely,  to  see  whether  ability  enough  did  not  remain,  circumstances  in  other 
respects  being  the  same,  to  investigate  and  elucidate  such  a  question  as  this.  I 
would  state  here  that  the  decision  in  the  case  cited  from  Benjamin  Monroe,  which 
was  read  from  a  pamphlet  the  other  day,  was  made  before  1848,  and  there  was  no- 
thing before  that  decision  to  show  that  there  was  the  conflicting  judgment  of  another 
General  Conference  on  the  subject.  The  mention  of  that  case  reminds  me  of  a  sin- 
gular suggestion  on  the  subject  of  power,  which  I  remember  is  advanced  in  the  opinion 
of  the  Court  in  that  case.  I  do  not  know  that  the  learned  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs 
adopted  that  argument,  which  certainly  would  have  given  a  great  deal  of  respectabi- 
lity to  it,  but  it  is  an  argument  advanced  by  the  Court  in  that  case,  and  will  there- 
fore come  under  the  observation  of  your  Honours.  It  is  said  that  if,  without  any  faci- 
lities being  afforded  by  the  General  Conference,  the  South  had  gone  forward  and 
done  this  very  act,  the  General  Conference  would  be  the  body,  according  to  ecclesi- 
astical polity,  to  go  on  and  arrange  and  adjust  between  the  separated  and  mutilated 
fragments ;  it  would  be  the  constitutional  body  to  draw  the  new  line  of  boundary 
and  to  adjust  the  terms  of  future  union  with  the  new  Church,  which  convulsion  and 
violence  had  thus  unexpectedly  erected  by  its  side ;  and  that,  therefore,  by  analogy, 
the  General  Conference  should  have  a  power  to  do  in  advance  that  same  thing,  i 


OftQ 
Zoo 

beg  to  say,  that  that  is  the  old  logical  sophism  of  ignotum  per  Ignatius,  because  there 
is  no  manner  of  certainty  that,  in  such  a  crisis  as  that,  there  would  be  devolved  on 
the  General  Conference  the  absolute  power  of  arranging  for  a  crisis  so  extraordinary. 
Nobody  knows  whether  it  would  be  or  not.  What  is  the  value  of  the  argument  in 
the  supposed  case  1  Nobody  knows  whether  it  would  be  devolved  on  the  General 
Conference  by  a  great  moral,  civil,  or  ecclesiastical  convulsion,  tearing  away  half  the 
Church.  Nobody  can  show  me  anything  in  the  history  or  polity  of  the  Church  to 
prove  that  the  General  Conference  would  be  the  only  body  charged  with  the  adjust- 
ment of  such  a  crisis  as  that.  On  the  contrary,  I  say  it  is  ten  thousand  times  more 
probable  that  thereupon  the  united  remaining  sovereign  will  would  be  assembled 
en  masse ;  for  the  great  question  would  be,  What  should  then  be  done  with  this  muti- 
lated fragment]  Shall  it  be  deemed  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  still 
exists  1  Or  shall  it  be  deemed  disintegrated  ?  And  hence,  until  you  see  that  the 
General  Conference  would,  in  such  a  case,  certainly  do  this,  to  argue  in  this  way  is, 
in  the  first  place,  ignotum  per  ignolius. 

There  is,  however,  a  deeper  difficulty.  It  does  not  follow  that  because  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  may  act  constitutionally  on  a  crisis  produced  by  the  action  of  another, 
it  may  therefore  proceed  and  initiate  and  facilitate  that  business  in  advance.  I  ap- 
prehend that  before  the  least  weight  can  be  given  to  such  an  argument  as  this,  your 
Honours  must  see  that  the  power,  which  it  is  said  they  possess  in  that  case,  is  so 
exactly  like  the  power  they  would  exert  in  the  supposed  case,  that  you  can  see  no 
reason  why  the  original  constituent  body  could  not  have  given  one  as  well  as  the 
other.  Therefore,  if  you  were  judicially  to  discern  that  the  constituent  bodv  might 
perfectly  well  have  clothed  them  with  the  constitutional  competency  to  deal  with 
such  a  case  as  that,  and  yet  have  withheld  it  from  them,  then  this  power  does  not 
follow  from  that  power,  and  there  is  the  fallacy  of  the  argument.  Let  me  take  a 
case — Quod  omen  avertat  Jupiter  !  If  a  convulsion  in  one  State  spread  into  another 
and  carry  off  a  range  of  States,  that  same  general  government,  when  that  crisis  shall 
have  arrived,  would  be  the  constitutional  body  to  recognise  the  foreign  existence  and 
to  arrange  the  terms  of  frontier  connexion,  to  define  the  line  of  boundary,  and  to  act 
on  the  crisis.  Could  we  infer  from  that  that  they  could  divide  the  States  1  So  here 
exactly.  I  put  this  argument  with  very  great  confidence  of  its  general  soundness. 
Cannot  this  Court  say  judicially,  perfectly  well,  that  the  constituent  body  of  1808 
might  have  said  exactly  this  to  the  General  Conference  :  "  Consider  yourselves 
charged  with  the  great  mission  of  preserving  the  unity  of  the  Church ;  let  that  unity 
be  first  and  last  in  all  your  thoughts,  and  counsels,  and  prayers ;  if  an  excited  locality 
hereafter  shall  come  to  you  and  solicit  to  be  let  off,  discourage  them,  hang  over  their« 
heads  every  terror  of  the  Church,  hang  over  their  heads  all  the  undefined  terrors  of 
excommunication,  and  thus,  if  you  can,  restrain  the  dire  desire,  and  bring  them  back 
again  ;  but  if,  unmindful  of  this  your  action,  they  go  out,  remember  you  have  unity 
to  preserve  ;  what  you  have,  keep  and  adorn  ;  for  unity,  take  care  of  what  is  left,  and 
for  unity  do  not  throw  out  facilities  in  advance  for  its  dissolution."  To  tell  me,  then, 
that  because  this  body  would  find  itself  charged  with  the  great  duty  of  saving  all  they 
could,  and  arranging  a  frontier  of  peace  with  this  separated  secession,  in  the  case  I 
have  been  putting,  they  may  therefore  divide,  is  to  say  that  extreme  medicine  maybe 
made  into  daily  bread,  and  a  shield  into  a  sword  of  death. 

I  therefore  respectfully  submit  that  that  analogy  does  not,  in  the  slightest  degree, 
apply  to  the  case  before  the  Court,  and  that  unless  your  Honours  do  clearly  discern 
that,  in  arguing  from  one  thing  to  another  in  this  case,  and  especially  to  ignotins 
from  ignotum,  and  the  reverse,  the  powers  are  so  identical  that  one  being  given  the 
ocher  follows  necessarily,  neither  of  the  powers  is  given. 


I  have  said  all  that  I  intended  to  say  on  the  subject  of  power.  I  am  ready  to  leave 
it  with  a  single  suggestion.  Your  Honours  are  aware  that  we  take  another  ground, 
and  that  is,  that  if  this  power  existed,  it  was  exerted  only  on  a  contingency  by  the 
General  Conference,  t.  e.,  upon  a  representation  made  to  them  by  the  minority  from 
the  South  that  a  necessity  would  certainly  develop  itself  for  such  a  change,  and 
thereupon,  in  anticipation  of  such  necessity  to  be  afterwards  developed,  the  General 
Conference  proceeded  to  do  what  they  have  done  in  the  way  of  a-  division,  and  that 
•that  contingency  never  has  happened  in  matter  of  fact.  That  is  the  substance  of  the 
point.  The  minority  feared  a  local  excitement.  Their  brethren  of  the  North  said  to 
them,  "  If  you  find  you  must  desert  them  or  us,  we  will  let  you  go."  We  say  they 
did  not  find  it,  but  made  it  so.  We  say  that  whether  it  existed  or  not,  the  General 
Conference  next  to  sit  was  to  decide,  or  this  Court  was  to  decide.  If  it  was  the 
General  Conference  next  to  sit  which  was  to  decide,  they  have  decided  against  them. 
If  it  was  this  Court,  we  respectfully  submit  that  your  Honours  will  decide  against 
them.  I  propose  to  submit  all  that  part  of  the  case  to  the  official  report  on  the  state 
of  the  Church,  to  be  found  on  page  138  of  Proofs  No.  1.  It  is  an  argument  of  great 
ability,  embodying  all  I  could  wish,  and  more  than  I  should  be  able  myself,  on  the 
same  point,  to  say  to  the  Court.  I  have  done,  then,  with  the  question  of  power  and 
the  exertion  of  the  power. 

It  remains  for  me  very  briefly  to  open,  not  to  attempt  to  enforce,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  legal  consequences  of  this  proposition,  if  maintained,  are  fatal  to  the  plain- 
tiffs' claim  ;  and,  in  the  next  place,  that  even  if  this  proposition  of  the  want  of  power  or 
the  exertion  of  it  is  not  maintained,  still  the  plaintiffs  cannot  sustain  their  bill.  In 
the  first  place,  and  in  a  general  way,  if  the  plaintiffs  have  voluntarily  seceded  and 
separated  themselves  from  membership,  without  competent  ecclesiastical  authority 
terminating  their  membership,  I  am  not  able  to  understand  how  it  can  be  seriously 
contested  that  their  rights  of  property  have  also  terminated.  To  avoid  that  conse- 
quence, the  plaintiffs  must  show  that  the  beneficiaries  of  this  fund  have  such  a  right 
that  a  voluntary  unauthorized  abandonment  of  membership  does  not  lose  it.  This 
conducts  us  to  the  very  important  question  of  the  nature  and  limitations  of  the  right 
of  the  beneficiaries  in  this  fund.  I  do  not  know  that  we  have  very  much  to  observe 
on  in  the  statement  made  by  the  eminent  counsel  for  the  plaintiffs  in  regard  to  the 
origin  and  nature  of  this  fund,  the  Book  Concern,  except,  perhaps,  if  he  will  give  me 
leave  to  say  it,  a  certain  degree  of  indistinctness  in  the  exhibition  of  the  capital  quali- 
fication, on  which  all  the  rights  of  the  beneficiaries  in  it  are  limited  —  that  of  continued 
membership.  In  his  interesting  outline  of  its  history  in  a  general  way,  we  concur. 
•We  may  pause  to  refresh  ourselves  for  a  moment.  That  history  goes  back  to  the 
year  1787.  It  was  very  early  discerned,  as  my  learned  brother  has  said,  that  a  sacred 
written  literature  would  be  among  the  most  important  instrumentalities  by  which  the 
great  ends  of  this  Church  could  be  accomplished.  Some  books  of  devotion  and 
worship,  at  any  rate,  there  must  be  provided  for  the  humblest  and  least  literate  of  its 
numerous  and  growing  congregations.  Therefore,  as  early  as  1787  individual 
preachers  appear  to  have  conceived  the  idea  of  publishing  and  circulating  such  books 
and  creating  such  a  literature  as  this.  To  this  end,  as  we  gather  from  history,  they 
began,  as  we  are  very  apt  to  begin  in  America,  on  borrowed  capital.  A  contribution 
may  have  been  occasionally  made,  but  the  main  source  of  growth  undoubtedly  was 
from  the  profits  of  the  business.  It  has  grown,  under  the  administration  of  the 
Church,  from  1787,  when  it  was  started  with  $4,000  capital  and  $3,000  debt,  to  the 
rery  large  amount  of  $750,000  —  from  $1,000  to  $750,000.  These  relative  sums  are 
not  important  to  the  determination  of  the  legal  point,  though  a  very  large  perennial  con- 
tribution of  spiritual,  and,  I  am  glad  to  be  able  to  add,  intellectual  as  well  as  moral  food. 


+* 


It  was  very  early  discerned  that  this  business  could  be  made,  not  only  to  support 
and  enlarge  itself,  but  also  to  yield  a  surplus  of  profits  ;  and  it  is  very  interesting  to 
observe,  that  from  its  origin  it  was  determined  to  dedicate  that  sort  of  profits  to, 
what  we  call  at  the  bar,  a  charitable  use, — that  is  to  say,  technically  and  legally,  a 
charitable  use,  but  not  at  all  excluding  meritorious  service,  and  giving  a  great  deal 
more  prominence. to  meritorious  service  in  the  beneficiary's  title  than  our  friends  on 
the  other  side  contend.  From  its  very  origin  this  fund  was  devoted  to  a  charitable 
use.  The  designation  of  the  beneficiaries  and  the  mode  of  administering  it  have 
varied  a  little  ;  but  from  1796  to  this  day,  by  a  law  passed  in  1796,  standing  on  the 
record  of  its  Discipline,  re-enacted  in  1800,  re-enacted  in  1804,  re-enacted  in  1808, 
and  continued,  that  surplus  fund  has  stood  explicitly,  and  irrevocably,  and  unequivo- 
cally devoted  to  a  perfect  and  well-defined  description  of  beneficiaries — to  travelling, 
supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  exhausted  preachers  and  their  families,  being,  as 
we  say,  all  the  time  in  membership  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  That  ap- 
propriation of  these  funds  was  made  by  law  in  1796  ;  to  that  appropriation  of  them 
this  Church  has  adhered,  without  the  interruption  of  a  moment.  Under  that  dedica- 
tion it  has  grown  up  from  $1,000  to  $750,000  ;  under  that  dedication,  many  laborious 
men,  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  came  into  the  Church,  lived  there,  laboured  there, 
died  there,  and  live  there  and  labour  there  yet,  on  the  faith  of  a  sound  interpretation 
and  an  exact  form  of  administration  of  that  trust.  And  I  am  here  to-day  for  nothing  but 
the  true  interpretation  of  that  trust.  Find  me  the  beneficiary  according  to  the  law, 
and  that  beneficiary  shall  have  his  share  of  the  funds  in  the  hands  of  my  clients. 
The  Court  knows  how  the  matter  stands.  The  trustees  are  my  clients,  the  book 
agents  on  record ;  the  beneficiaries  are  the  persons  indicated  ;  those  who  manage 
the  fund  are  the  annual  conferences  and  the  General  Conference  ;  and  the  mode  of 
doing  it  is  this  : — these  book  agents  designate  the  amount  to  which  each  annual  con- 
ference is  entitled,  and  each  thereupon  draws  its  amount,  calls  the  beneficiaries,  and 
proceeds  to  measure  to  each  party  according  to  his  claim. 

So  much  for  the  history.  Passing  from  this  to  the  legal  questions,  I  will  not 
stop  to  say  anything  on  the  first  two  points  which  are  contained  on  the  plaintiffs'  brief, 
although  perhaps  they  would  warrant  the  criticism  that  they  are  somewhat  inade- 
quately conceived,  a  little  overstated  ;  but  I  pass  them  without  particular  remark. 
It  is  on  arriving*  at  the  third  point  that  we  find  the  beginning  of  the  controversy. 
We  think,  with  very  great  submission,  that  the  learned  and  eminent  counsel,  in  this 
point  and  in  his  argument,  overstates  the  right  of  any  beneficiary  when  he  calls  it  a 
perfect  right,  and  that  they  misdescribe  it  when  they  call  it  a  right  in  a  fund  of  earn- 
ings in  the  nature  of  a  partnership  derived  from  work  and  labour  about  books.  We 
must  submit  on  this  that  they  fail,  as  it  seems  to  us,  to  appreciate  that  the  capital 
qualification  under  which  every  beneficiary  is  to  acquire  and  hold  it,  is  the  quali- 
fication of  original  and  continued  membership  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
That  qualification  we  think  they  fail,  in  all  its  importance,  to  appreciate.  I  will 
not  pause  at  this  moment  to  indicate  with  what  propriety  it  is  said  that  the  right 
of  any  beneficiary  is  a  perfect  right.  In  regard  to  the  qualities  that  are  properly  at- 
tributable to  it  in  a  legal  point  of  view,  it  is  a  right  which  began  to  be  acquired  by 
coming  within  the  designatio  personarum,  but  it  is  a  right  to  be  maintained  and  per- 
fected only  by  the  continued  performance  of  certain  conditions.  He  who  becomes  a 
travelling  preacher  initiates  a  right ;  but  if  he  is  expelled,  as  he  sometimes  is,  or  if 
he  is  located,  as  he  may  be,  he  loses  that  right.  So  also  of  a  supernumerary  and  even 
of  a  superannuated.  So  then  I  submit  that  it  is  a  right,  beginning  by  one  coming 
within  a  certain  designatio  personarum,  but  which  is  lost  for  want  of  a  continuance  in 
official  well-doing  afterwards. 


286 

Nor  will  I  pause  at  this  moment  to  inquire,  because  I  attach  no  sort  of  con- 
sequence to  it,  although  there  is  some  diversity  of  judgment  as  to  that  point,  if 
this  right  of  the  beneficiary  is  in  the  least  degree  better  or  worse  from  the  circum- 
stance on  which  my  learned  friend  places  some  stress,  that  the  fund  has  grown  from 
profits  on  books  which  the  travelling  preachers  of  the  society  sold.  I  suppose  it  alto- 
gether immaterial.  The  right  of  the  beneficiary  on  this  dedication  to  charitable  uses 
does  not  depend  in  the  least  on  the  kind  of  work  which,  as  a  travelling  preacher,  he 
does,  or.  as  a  supernumerary  or  superannuated,  he  has  done ;  but  the  right  depends 
on  this — that  he  became  a  preacher  and  continued  to  be  a  preacher  under  the  Disci- 
pline, under  the  dedication  which  gives  a  preacher  a  certain  allowance  and  a  certain 
claim  on  this  fund.  That  I  submit  in  point  of  law  is  exactly  the  origin  of  the  preach- 
er's right.  There  is  no  natural  right  under  any  circumstances,  no  right  raised  by 
implication  for  work  and  labour  done.  The  only  requisite  is — becoming  a  travelling 
preacher,  continuing  a  travelling  preacher,  continuing  a  supernumerary  or  superan- 
nuated preacher,  under  the  same  dedication,  in  whatever  field  of  Methodist  labour  he 
may  have  been  employed.  Whether  this  preacher  was,  what  they  call  in  some  soci- 
eties, a  colporteur  of  books,  is  of  no  importance.  He  who  never  carried  a  book  for 
•sale  in  his  life  is  as  clearly  within  the  grant  as  he  who  has  carried  libraries  of  books. 
Some  preachers  carried  books  and  some  did  not  carry  them.  If  he  carried  them,  it  adds 
nothing  to  his  title  ;  if  he  did  not,  it  detracts  nothing  from  his  title.  My  learned  bro- 
ther will  give  me  leave  to  say  that  the  most  conservative  and  best  instructed  on  the 
other  side  really  can  find  nothing  better  to  put  their  case  on  than  absolute  socialism 
at  last.  "  He  has  laboured  about  the  books,  and  therefore  has  a  natural  right  to  the 
fund,"  they  say.  Is  not  that  socialism  1  To  be  sure  he  has  laboured  about  the 
books,  but  the  books  were  not  his.  Did  he  write  them  1  No.  Did  he  own  them  I 
Certainly  not.  Did  he  own  their  profits  1  Certainly  not.  On  the  contrary,  they 
were  the  property  of  another  party,  to  wit,  the  trustee,  for  charitable  uses,  and  that 
party  hired  him  to  work  for  him,  and  told  him,  "  If  you  work  and  be  a  travelling 
oreacher,  supernumerary  or  superannuated,  you  will  have  an  interest  in  this  fund." 
But  in  the  meantime  books  and  profits  belonged  to  his  employer,  and  his  right  at 
last  cannot  be  placed  or  maintained  for  a  minute  on  any  ground  but  that  he  is  a  ser- 
vant and  labourer,  and  therefore,  according  to  the  highest  authority,  "  worthy  of  his 
hire,"  according  to  the  terms  of  that  hire.  I  shall  therefore  take  it  for  granted,  with- 
out stopping  to  develop  it,  that  while  the  right  is  no  doubt  perfect,  in  a  certain 
sense,  if  he  continues  in  well-doing  officially  to  the  end,  it  is  not  accurately  de- 
scribed, it  is  not  described  according  to  law,  it  is  not  described  according  to  the 
jurisprudence  of  conservation,  by  the  plaintiffs.  There  is  not  a  labourer  in  the  ser- 
vice of  New-York  that  might  not  allege  an  interest  in  the  fund  on  the  same  grounds 
exactly.  Does  he  not  carry  out  the  milk?  Does  he  not  take  care  of  the  chyme1? 
Is  it  not  immediately  and  directly  attributable  to  his  skill  that  the  fund  was  gathered  T 
Why  has  he  not  a  right  to  it  1  Because  he  did  not  work  in  a  state  of  nature,  but 
under  a  convention  quae  vincit  legem,  under  a  contract  with  the  owner  that  he  should 
do  his  work  and  receive  certain  wages.  I  have  not  therefore  attached  a  great  deal 
of  importance  to  this  view,  although  much  has  been  said  about  it. 

We  come  directly  at  last  to  the  great  decisive  qualification  which  is  overlooked  on 
the  other  side,  whether  membership  is  not  an  indispensable  qualification  to  initiating 
a  right,  and  continuing  membership  indispensable  to  the  continuance  of  the  right. 
I  submit  that  is  perfectly  plain — too  plain  for  me  to  argue  for  a  moment.  I  do  not 
believe  either  of  the  eminent  counsel  mean  to  say  that  there  can  be  any  pretence  that 
this  description  of  persons,  at  the  time  when  their  right  inchoates  and  attaches  to 
them  at  first,  are  not  to  be  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  My  learned 


287 

brother  surely  does  not  mean  to  say  that  a  travelling  preacher  in  Bermuda  has  a  right 
to  this  fund.  Nobody  contends  for  that.  Beyond  all  doubt,  when  they  first  come 
within  the  designatio  personurum  on  which  the  right  takes  its  inchoation,  they  are  to 
be  members.  The  question  is,  whether  they  can  go  away  and  still  be  members.  I 
submit  that  they  cannot,  for  this  general  reason,  that  the  right  is  not  perfect  at  the 
start,  but  it  is  a  right  to  be  kept  alive  and  matured  by  a  series  of  service — because 
the  Church  may  exact  duties  from  him,  in  the  administration  of  which  he  may  lose 
the  right.  The  travelling  preacher,  if  he  is  expelled,  loses  the  right ;  if  he  is  turned 
into  a  local  preacher,  he  loses  his  right.  Now,  can  it  be  pretended  that  while  a  travel- 
ling preacher  remains  and  works  in  the  Methodist  Church,  and  holds  his  interest  on 
condition  that  he  does  not  get  expelled  and  does  not  get  located,  another  preacher, 
who  came  into  the  Church  on  the  same  day,  can  retire  from  its  service,  and  thus 
relieve  himself  from  the  conditions  and  inconveniences  and  qualifications  under  which 
the  other  holds  his  right,  and  retain  his  right  1  Can  he  retire,  and  thus  avoid  the 
onus,  and  retain  the  commodum  ?  I  respectfully  submit  that  he  cannot.  The  mean- 
ing, therefore,  of  the  system  is,  if  he  becomes  a  travelling  preacher,  if  he  remains  a 
travelling  preacher,  he  earns  a  right ;  but  if  he  lives  so  that  the  Church  cannot  fol- 
low him  by  the  conditions,  so  that  it  cannot  follow  him  by  the  qualifications,  cannot 
hold  him  to  any  responsibility,  his  right  is  gone ;  or  else  it  is  to  be  conceded  that 
by  departing  from  the  Church  he  may,  by  his  own  act,  change  the  tenure  of  title  granted 
to  all  alike  by  the  original  law.  That  is  just  as  true  of  the  supernumerary  as  it  is  of 
the  travelling  preacher.  A  supernumerary  (if  my  ecclesiastical  friends  will  permit 
me  to  say  it)  is  nothing  but  an  officer  on  shore  waiting  orders.  He  is  subject  to  the 
call  of  the  Church,  and  is  liable  to  be  put  in  active  service,  liable  to  be  expelled, 
liable  to  be  located,  as  well  as  another.  This  seems  to  be  just  as  true  of  the  super- 
annuated. One  would  think  that  if  anybody  could  retire  from  the  Church  and  retain 
title,  it  would  be  the  superannuated,  the  exhausted  preacher.  Yet  there  can  be  no 
'doubt  that  he  also  is  required  by  the  discipline  of  the  Church  to  stay  and  serve.  It 
is  true  that  his  day  of  active,  manly  exercise  is  done,  but  it  is  also  true  that  there  re- 
mains a  service  of  loyalty  and  love.  His  silvery  cord  may  be  about  to  be  loosened 
and  the  bowl  to  be  broken  at  the  fountain,  yet  he  may  testify  of  the  Church  by  the 
beauty  of  a  declining  and  ripe  age  ;  his  lips  may  continue  to  speak  for  her,  his  hands 
may  continue  to  be  lifted  up.  Therefore  it  is  that  the  Church  that  maintains  him, 
follows  him  with  a  duty  gentler  and  gentler,  and  more  and  more  kindly  executed,  but 
a  duty  to  his  grave.  There  is  never  an  hour  when  the  longest  official  life  entitles 
the  most  meritorious  superannuated  preacher  to  throw  off  the  weight  of  age,  to  retire 
from  duty,  and  yet  enjoy  support.  This  is  what  makes  this  Church  what  it  is — small 
pay,  hard  work,  constant  superintendence,  justice  to  all  men  according  to  the  con- 
tract. I  do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary  to  add  anything  to  this  general  argument. 
My  learned  brother  cannot  conceive  how  a  Methodist  going  occasionally  to  a  Pres- 
byterian meeting  should  lose  his  share  of  the  fund.  I  think  that  perhaps  it  might  do 
him  good  occasionally  to  go  to  a  Presbyterian  meeting.  He  may  go  anywhere  until 
lie  gets  expelled,  and  do  anything  that  does  not  terminate  membership.  That  is  all. 
This  Church  is  not  strict,  this  Church  is  not  narrow  ;  and  strict,  or  narrow,  or  other- 
wise, while  the  membership  remains  undissolved  by  expulsion,  the  right  remains. 
My  learned  friend  did  not  seem  to  consider  that  remaining  a  Methodist  was  neces- 
sary to  continue  the  right.  Why,  says  he,  he  was  to  be  a  preacher,  and  nothing  is 
said  about  his  being  a  Methodist.  -He  deduced  it,  however,  that  the  object  was  to 
promote  Methodism,  and  he  was  a  little  shocked  that  a  person  should  lose  his  right 
because  he  was  promoting  another  religion.  Does  my  friend  mean  to  say  that  in  the 
first  instance  a  man  can  take*  a  right  to  the  fund  because  he  preaches  Methodism  1  I 


288 

suppose  he  preaches  it  in  Bermuda  under  the  pine  trees,  or  in  Canada  among  the 
regions  of  perpetual  snow — does  he  take  title  1  It  is  perfectly  clear  that  he  does 
not.  I  submit  that  it  is  not  accurate  to  say  this  fund  was  created  to  promote  Metho- 
dism. It  was  created  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  promote  its  own  effi- 
ciency and  strength  for  good,  and  thus  enable  it  to  spread  Methodism.  That  is  the 
object  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  of  this  fund.  Then  it  is  not  to  pro- 
mote Methodism  generally,  but  to  strengthen  the  Church,  to  enrich  it,  to  make  elo- 
quent tongues,  and  touch  lips  as  with  fire,  to  the  end  that  by  the  Church  Methodism 
shall  be  spread. 

Why  should  I  argue  the  matter  at  large  when  we  have  two  such  memorable  con- 
structions before  us  as  the  Canada  case  and  the  case  of  1844 1  What  was  the  Canada 
case,  as  a  property  case  1  I  have  touched  on  it  at  considerable  length  as  it  bears  on 
the  ecclesiastical  question.  I  submit  that  it  was  settled  on  that  occasion  with  great 
deliberation,  against  every  wish  of  every  man's  heart,  that  this  fund  was  to  be  used 
within  these  uses  for  travelling,  supernumerary,  and  superannuated  preachers  ;  and 
that  in  departing,  not  merely  in  peace,  but  with  every  benediction  of  the  Church,  the 
Canada  Church  could  take  nothing.  That  is  the  Canada  case.  Canada  left  this 
Church  in  peace.  Did  not  the  members  of  the  Canadian  Church  remain  Methodists 
still  1  Did  they  not  continue  to  give,  in  Methodistical  spirit,  the  advice  of  foreign 
philanthropy  about  slavery,  to  show  how  affectionately  they  remembered  us  1  They 
went  in  peace,  they  remained  Methodists,  and  yet  you  find  this  Church,  by  a  unani- 
mous and  deliberate  judgment,  declaring  that  they  were  not  entitled  to  a  farthing. 
That  is  the  very  question  now  before  the  Court.  I  am  now  departing  from  the  case 
of  unauthorized  secession,  and  speaking  of  the  case  of  secession  authorized,  and  at- 
tended by  the  greetings  of  those  who  gave  the  leave.  In  that  case  it  is  settled. 
Your  Honours,  by  referring  to  the  case,  will  find  that  there  was  a  strong  desire  to 
indulge  the  Canadians  ;  it  was  a  struggle  between  conviction  and  inclination.  Your 
Honours,  as  men  as  well  as  learned  judges,  will  appreciate  the  value  of  such  a  deci- 
sion as  that.  It  was  a  decision  wrung  from  the  Conference  by  a  perfectly  understood 
sense  of  duty.  We  are  on  that  very  identical  question,  Who  is  within  these  uses  1 
It  is  to  be  devoted  to  travelling  preachers,  supernumerary  and  superannuated.  Where 
and  who  ?  Members  of  what  1  Members  of  this  Church  ;  and  that  decision  is  that 
if  they  cease  to  be  such,  although  by  consent  of  everybody,  and  affectionate  dismissal 
of  everybody,  the  right  was  gone. 

Have  we  not  a  still  stronger  case  in  this  very  proceeding  of  1844;?  Have  we  not 
here  all  but  the  unanimous  judgment  of  this  body,  that  persons  no  longer  members, 
even  if  they  depart  in  peace  and  by  consent,  cannot  t$ke  a  dollar]  Does  not  the 
action  of  that  body  record  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  body,  that  these  uses  fail 
on  failure  of  membership,  and  that  this  retirement,  although  peaceable,  is  a  failure 
of  membership,  and  that  therefore,  unless  the  uses  .could  be  enlarged,  the  retiring 
member  was  no  longer  within  them?  Was  not  that  the  very  reason  why  they 
recommended  to  the  annual  conferences  a  change  in  the  restrictive  article  7  I  sup- 
pose then  we  have  here  the  highest  evidence  of  law  ;  we  have  the  contemporaneous 
exposition  of  its  makers,  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  and  they  certainly  re- 
lieve me  from  the  trouble  of  pursuing  the  argument  further.  I  had  intended  to 
trace  the  connexion  between  such  an  association  as  this  and  a  partnership ;  but 
I  remember  by  whom  I  am  to  be  followed,  on  the  part  of  these  defendants,  and  I 
gladly  relieve  the  Court  from  the  further  consideration  of  this  part  of  the  case. 

Then,  if  this  be  so,  the  case  is  ended,  in  every  view.  Authorized  or  unauthorized, 
membership  has  gone,  and  with  membership  right  is  gone.  The  only  answer:  to 
this,  which  we  have  been  able  to  appreciate,  is,  that  the  old  Church  is  destroyed,  and 


289 

two  new  ones  created  upon  its  site,  and  upon  that  destruction  everybody  was  remit- 
ted to  his  natural  rights — the  ship  had  gone  ashore,  and  every  man  was  to  get  a  nail 
or  a  plank  as  he  could — everybody  upon  that  dissolution  is  remitted  to  his  natural 
right,  as  in  a  joint-stock  company  or  in  a  partnership.  That  is  the  only  case,  as  I 
understand,  which  is  left  for  the  plaintiffs.  To  this  there  are  four  answers,  each  of 
which  is,  I  think,  equally  decisive.  In  the  first  place,  I  have  already  argued  that  the 
General  Conference  has  no  power  ecclesiastically  to  destroy  the  Church.  I  am  not 
now  speaking  of  a  division  leaving  the  old  identity  untouched.  I  have  argued  that  they 
cannot  destroy  the  Church,  and  raise  two  or  two  thousand  Churches  from  its  ashes. 
In  the  next  place,  the  General  Conference  in  this  great  transaction  did  not  assume 
to  destroy  the  Church,  but  on  the  contrary,  the  Plan  of  Separation,  from  beginning  to 
end,  shows  that  what  they  intended  to  do  was  to  authorize  a  departure,  leaving  the  old 
identity  untouched.  If  your  Honours  will  do  me  the  favour  to  look  into  the  Plan  as 
it  is  stated  in  the  bill  you  will  find : — 1st.  That  the  General  Conference  never 
assumed,  in  terms,  to  destroy  the  Church.  2d.  That  they  never  assumed,  in  terms, 
to  divide  the  Church.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  quite  striking  to  remark,  that  while 
it  speaks  of  a  division  of  property,  it  never  speaks  of  a  division  of  the  Church,  but 
simply  and  merely  of  a  separation  of  parties  from  the  Church ;  it  deals  throughout 
with  a  contemplated  act  of  other  persons,  and  calls  that  act  a  separation  by  them, 
and  all  it  authorizes  is  a  separation  by  others  leaving  itself  to  exist.  It  calls  itself 
by  the  old  name  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  designates  the  new  one,  thus 
to  be  erected,  by  the  name  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  ;  and  I  submit 
that  to  retain  the  name  is  to  retain  the  identity.  I  would  call  the  attention  of  the 
Court  to  a  single  section  in  the  bill  on  page  4.  It  embodies  the  entire  theory  of 
the  Plan  of  Separation.  Article  2  of  the  Plan  of  Separation  says  : — 

"  That  ministers,  local  and  travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame, 
attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South." 

Your  Honours  will  find  the  proof  of  my  argument  on  pp.  4,  5,  and  6  of  the  bill.  In 
that  connexion,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that  such  is  the  view  of  this  transaction  taken 
in  7  Ben.  Monroe,  p.  507,  in  the  case  which  has  been  cited.  (For  extract,  see  p.  368.) 

Let  me  add  two  auxiliary  suggestions.  The  first  is,  That  the  Louisville  Conven- 
tion throughout  all  their  resolutions  say  nothing  at  all  of  a  division  of  the  Church, 
but  characterize  their  own  act  as  a  separation  from  an  identity  already  existing,  and 
which  it  leaves  exactly  as  it  was  before,  only  abridged.  2d.  The  frame  of  the 
plaintiffs'  bill  so  treats  the  affair.  They  do  not  call  us,  or  anybody  representing  us, 
a  new  Church,  nor  these  defendants  the  agents  of  a  new  Church  ;  but  it  is  assumed 
throughout  that  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  exists  ab  eo  nomine.  If  your 
Honours  will  turn  to  pp.  10  and  11  of  the  bill,  you  will  find  this  remark  abundantly 
verified. 

In  the  third  place,  not  only  does  the  General  Conference  not  assume  to  destroy, 
and  thus  to  allow  the  plaintiffs  to  interpose  their  theory  of  the  natural  right  of  all  the 
stockholders,  but  it  goes  further.  It  does  not  content  itself  with  authorizing  a  sepa- 
ration and  stopping  there,  but  it  goes  further,  and  takes  care  to  ordain  solicitously 
that  the  party  seceding  shall  have  nothing  at  all  on  the  ground  of  natural  right, 
nothing  at  all  on  the  ground  of  natural  equity,  attaching  to  dissolution  and  growing 
out  of  an  old  quantum  meruit  for  work  and  labour  about  books,  but  that  he  shall  have 
nothing  except  according  to  the  existing  law  of  the  society — except  the  annual  con- 
ferences would  give  it.  I  think  we  find  here  evidence  of  the  proposition.  Then  in 
the  bill  to  which  I  have  been  making  reference,  we  find  evidence  of  it  also.  The 

19 


290 

work  was  consummated  by  the  Conference,  and  I  submit  that  no  man  is  to  take  any- 
thing on  the  ground  of  natural  right — no  man  is  to  take  anything  except  under  the 
lex  societatis,  i.  e.,  if  the  annual  conferences  will  give  it,  and  they  recommend 
them  to  do  so.  Instead  of  a  dissolution,  there  was  a  withdrawal  of  parties ;  and 
it  was  ordained  that  everybody  not  withdrawing,  should  be  subject  to  the  still  ex- 
isting law  of  the  society.  Therefore,  I  submit  that  it  is  impossible,  against  this 
reiterated  question  of  intent,  that  the  plaintiffs  can  imply  a  constructive  equity  on 
which  they  can  come  in  and  insist  upon  remission  to  natural  right. 

Is  it  not  perfectly  plain,  as  a  matter  of  meaning,  that  the  General  Conference  in- 
tends that  nobody  shall  take  a  dollar  by  secession  or  natural  right,  unless  the  annual 
conferences  give  it  1  Is  it  not  absurd  to  suppose  they  would  go  on  providing,  that  if 
the  annual  conference  do  so  and  so,  something  shall  follow,  if  they  meant  to  ordain, 
whether  the  annual  conferences  do  so  or  not,  that  every  man  should  have  part  of  the 
fund  1  Is  it  not  perfectly  obvious  that  they  meant  to  recognise  the  law  of  the 
society  as  hi  force,  to  interpret  it  as  giving  the  property  only  to  members,  and  there- 
upon to  confine  their  action  to  the  advisory  alteration  of  the  use  without  which  no 
right  was  to  arise  at  all  1  Is  it  not  then  perfectly  plain,  that  against  this  ordinance 
of  the  General  Conference  on  this  express  agreement  no  possible  implication  can  be 
raised  1  How  can  the  plaintiffs  take  apart  of  this  bill  and  reject  the  rest?  Can 
they  take  so  much  of  it  as  suits  them,  and  go  for  natural  equity  for  the  rest  of  it  t 
Would  the  Conference  of  1844  have  divided  the  Church,  if  the  effect  would  be  to 
let  hi  natural  right,  on  which  the  seceder  should  take  as  much  as  he  that  remained, 
when  they  were  sitting  under  a  constitution  expressly  prohibiting  them  from  com- 
mitting any  such  act  1 

Finally  and  fourthly,  there  is  another  answer  to  the  suggestion  that  the  division  lets 
the  plaintiffs  in  on  natural  equity  against  the  meaning  of  the  Conference  ;  and  it  is, 
that  if  such  must  be  the  effect,  whether  the  General  Conference  can  by  express 
declaration  help  it  or  not,  we  know  they  had  no  power  to  make  a  dissolution.  Your 
Honours  will  observe  that  it  adds  another  element  to  the  argument  I  had  the  honour 
to  submit  yesterday,  whether  ecclesiastically  they  can  divide  or  not.  If  it  be  so 
that  a  division,  in  spite  of  the  General  Conference  and  everything  they  can  ordain 
to  qualify  it,  must  necessarily  carry  the  property  out  of  its  use,  by  carrying  it  to  one 
not  a  member,  we  know  they  cannot  make  it,  because  they  are  a  representative  body, 
with  no  power  but  what  the  constituent  gives  ;  and  we  know  by  the  terms  of  the 
constitution  under  which  they  exist,  that  they  are  forbidden  to  do  that  act  directly, 
and  they  cannot  do  indirectly  what  they  cannot  do  directly.  Therefore,  I  say  that 
if  the  General  Conference  is  so  situated,  that  it  cannot  divide  this  Church  without 
the  additional  consequence  that  the  property  goes  to  one  not  entitled,  it  follows  that 
they  cannot  divide  the  Church,  and  that  is  no  great  harm  in  my  humble  judgment. 
They  cannot  divide,  if  to  divide  is  to  break  the  constitution.  They  cannot  grasp 
doubtful  ecclesiastical  power  with  .the  effect  of  violating  plain  civil  right. 

I  need  not,  then,  in  conclusion,  suggest  the  other  point  which,  however,  I  believe, 
stands  on  proof  that  the  annual  conferences  and  General  Conference  together  could 
not  set  this  use  at  large.  The  general  grant  may  be  thus  stated.  The  right  is  in 
cestique  and  his  continuing  a  member.  Therefore,  if  the  annual  conferences  had 
acted  on  this  recommendation,  they  could  not  have  given  the  fund  to  the  retiring 
members.  Such  was  the  original  grant.  The  use  was  created  in  1792  or  1800,  and 
renewed  in  1804,  and  it  became  the  law  of  the  Church,  and  thenceforward  I  suppose 
remained  the  law  of  the  Church.  The  authorities  for  the  proposition  are  on  the  brief. 
It  is,  however,  a  moot-point,  and  of  no  sort  of  consequence,  as  the  annual  confer- 
ences did  not  unite  in  agreeing  to  the  recommendation. 

19* 


291 

I  have  been  too  much  indulged  by  the  kindness  of  the  Court  to  trespass  for 
another  moment  on  your  Honours'  attention.  I  have  certainly  supposed  that  the 
plaintiffs  have  no  legal  and  no  equitable  right  to  the  relief  for  which  they  ask,  in  any 
of  the  forms  in  which  they  ask  for  it.  I  cannot  admit  that  they  have  been  misled 
into  their  present  position  by  any  act  of  the  defendants.  The  General  Conference 
did  for  them  all  it  could  ;  it  recommended  to  the  annual  conferences  to  rescind. 
They  did  not  rescind.  The  plaintiffs  will  give  me  leave  to  say  that  they  knew  per- 
fectly well  from  the  beginning,  and  at  every  step  they  took,  that  they  took  it  under 
the  hazards  of  the  action  of  the  annual  conferences,  and  that  they  ran  the  risk  of  an 
unfavourable  judgment,  even  if  they  themselves  did  not  procure  that  unfavourable 
judgment.  One  consolation  and  one  certainty  we  have.  We  know  that  the  law  of 
the  case  will  be  discerned  and  applied.  We  know  perfectly  well  that  whatever  may 
be  the  result  of  the  case,  or  the  result  of  the  general  controversy,  it  will  vindicate  and 
exemplify,  what  needs  neither  to  be  vindicated  nor  exemplified — the  administration  of 
justice  according  to  a  settled  rule.  With  the  consequences  of  their  judgments,  this 
Court  is  not  in  the  habit  of  troubling  itself  in  advance  to  inquire.  But  I  may  be 
permitted  to  say  for  myself  at  the  bar,  looking  a  little  beyond  the  immediate  profes- 
sional inquiry  here  involved,  that  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  anything  this  day  which 
a  wise  man  and  a  lover  of  his  country  should  as  much  desire  as  the  re-establishment, 
in  some  good  measure,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  one  Church  again  for  the 
North  and  the  South.  Whether  and  to  what  extent  one  may  surely  entertain  such  a 
hope  as  that,  I  am  sure  I  have  not  a  satisfactory  means  of  determining.  For  myself, 
let  me  tell  the  Court,  however,  before  I  take  my  leave  of  them,  that  my  clients  this 
day  are  a  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  North  and  South,  shorn  of  some  beams, 
bereaved  of  some  auxiliary  talent,  and  impaired  to  some  extent  of  their  strength  and 
means  of  utility.  These  defendants  are  this  day  still  a  Church  for  the  North  and  the 
South.  This  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the  old  organization,  exists  this  day  in 
many  a  slave  State.  In  Delaware,  in  Maryland,  in  Eastern  Virginia,  in  Western  Vir- 
ginia, in  Kentucky,  in  Missouri,  in  Arkansas,  in  Texas,  it  has  thousands  of  attached 
affectionate  adherents.  I  rejoice  to  be  able  to  believe  that  it  is  enlarging.  I  will  not 
deny  that,  and  in  addition  to  the  reasons  of  gratification  with  which  I  believe  the  law 
of  the  case  is  with  the  defendants,  I  feel  also  that  a  decision  in  their  favour  will  do 
something  to  enable  this  Church  to  enlarge  itself  in  that  direction,  will  add  something 
to  its  means  of  winning  back,  by  its  ample  provisions  and  its  ever  open  arms,  the 
whole  ancient  household  of  its  faith. 

MR.  WOOD, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  so  much  time  has  already  been  occu- 
pied in  the  investigation  of  this  case,  and  the  evidence  has  been  so  fully  and  so  ably 
sifted  and  detailed  by  the  opening  counsel  on  both  sides,  that  I  think  it  would  be  a 
waste  of  time  for  the  closing  counsel  to  occupy  much  of  your  attention  in  going  over 
the  evidence.  I  shall  therefore  condense  the  remarks  which  I  propose  to  make  on 
that  branch  of  the  case  in  as  narrow  a  space  as  possible,  and  confine  myself  principally 
to  the  argument  of  the  law  of  the  case,  considering  the  facts  in  a  great  measure  as 
already  fully  developed  before  the  Court. 

It  is  important  that  we  should  understand,  at  the  very  threshold  of  this  argu- 
ment, the  precise  issue  between  these  parties.  The  plaintiffs  in  this  case,  claim,  a 
portion  of  this  fund,  corresponding  in  amount  with  the  relative  proportion  of  the 
members  who  have  gone  off  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  formed  the 
new  Church,  South.  They  have  brought  this  suit  for  the  purpose  of  recovering  this 
property.  There  has  been  an  actual  separation  of  the  ecclesiastical  body.  That  is 
not  disputed  ;  and  the  question  now  is,  whether  that  separation  entitles  them  to 


292 

recover  and  receive  a  ratable  proportion  of  the  property,  the  income  of  which  be- 
longs to  certain  beneficiaries  for  the  time  being,  who  are  attached  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  That  is  the  important  issue  between  the  parties  in  this  cause. 
It  certainly  is  a  most  unfortunate  controversy — for  if  there  are  any  subjects  which 
ought  to  be  kept  out  of  dispute,  which  ought  to  be  marked  emphatically  with  the 
spirit  of  peace,  they  are  religious  subjects.  Every  controversy  of  the  kind  has  a 
most  deleterious  effect  upon  the  morals  of  the  community.  The  rising  generation 
lose,  in  a  great  measure,  their  respect  for  religion,  when  they  see  the  heads  of  the 
Church  quarrelling  and  dividing.  We  have  seen  the  baneful  influence  of  these  con- 
troversies in  divisions  of  other  Churches  which  have  heretofore  taken  place  ;  and  I 
will  venture  to  say  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  and  the  Church,  South,  will 
soon  discover  it,  by  sad  experience.  But  there  is  another  point  of  view  in  which  it 
is  unfortunate.  This  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  its  territorial  jurisdiction,  is 
commensurate  with  the  entire  Union.  It  is  one  of  the  largest  Churches  in  this  coun- 
try. It  has  been  the  pioneer  of  religion.  It  has  gone  on  with  the  advance  of  civili- 
zation and  improvement  in  this  country.  It  has  carried  religion  along  with  settle- 
ment and  civilization,  and  has  ameliorated  the  condition  of  the  different  classes  of  the 
community  upon  our  gradually  extending  borders.  A  division  of  this  kind,  therefore, 
may  be  said,  in  some  measure,  to  be  a  national  concern ;  and  when  we  find  in  the 
present  condition  of  our  country,  that  there  has  been,  as  is  admitted  on  all  hands,  and 
as  many  believe  still  to  exist,  serious  danger  threatening  the  unity  of  this  federal 
government,  it  is  of  importance  that  a  controversy  of  this  kind  should,  if  possible, 
be  adjusted,  and  it  is  to  be  seriously  regretted  that  such  a  controversy  has  arisen  It 
is  seriously  to  be  regretted  that  the  Southern  members  of  this  Church  have  thought  pro- 
per to  bring  their  claim  into  a  court  of  justice,  more  especially  while  it  was  in  a  course 
of  amicable  adjustment,  and  when,  with  a  little  more  patience  and  forbearance, 
there  was  every  probability  that  it  would  be  finally  adjusted.  But,  unfortunately, 
they  have  commenced  this  controversy,  and  it  is  our  duty  now  to  defend  ourselves. 

The  counsel  on  the  other  side  have  mainly  rested  their  claim  upon  grounds  which 
appear  to  me  to  be  entirely  fallacious.  They  seem  to  look  upon  themselves,  or  rather 
upon  the  beneficiaries  whom  they  say  they  represent,  in  what  is  called  the  Southern 
branch  of  this  Church,  as  having  a  sort  of  vested  right  to  this  property.  They  draw 
a  distinction  between  property  which  has  been  given  to  a  Church,  and  property  which 
has  been  acquired  by  the  labour  of  individuals  belonging  to  a  Church.  They  treat 
this  as  property  of  the  latter  kind,  and  they  claim  they  have  a  right  to  it,  a  vested 
right ;  and  upon  the  division  of  this  Church  they  are  entitled,  as  in  the  case  of  a  part- 
nership or  tenancy  in  common,  to  have  a  division  of  the  property  and  receive  a  ratable 
proportion.  It  appears  to  me  that  this  is  an  entirely  erroneous  view  of  this  subject. 
I  am  aware  they  are  somewhat  warranted  in  this  course  of  remark  by  the  decision 
which  was  made  in  the  Maysville  case,  whch  they  refer  to,  and  on  which  they  mainly 
rely.  But  I  trust  I  shall  be  able  to  satisfy  this  Court  that  the  principles  upon  which 
that  decision  rests,  and  the  principles  upon  which  they  now  base  their  claim,  are 
entirely  fallacious  and  unfounded. 

I  consider,  and  they  admit,  I  believe,  m  their  claim,  that  their  rights  in  this  case 
depend  upon  the  law  of  charitable  uses.  It  is  important,  therefore,  that  we  should 
understand  precisely  the  nature  of  that  kind  of  property,  and  of  the  claim  which  they 
make.  A  charitable  use  is  a  public  use.  It  is  called  charitable  mainly  because  the 
largest  portion  of  that  kind  of  public  property  in  every  Christian  country  is  based 
upon  a  charitable  foundation.  There  are  four  elements  in  every  class  of  charitable 
use.  There  are,  in  the  first  place,  the  founders  of,  and  contributors  to,  the  charity, 
those  who  have  created  and  bestowed  the  property  or  the  funds  to  the  charitable  pur- 


293 

poses.  There  are,  in  the  second  place,  the  trustees  of  the  charity,  those  who  hold 
the  legal  estate  in  trust.  In  the  third  place,  there  are  the  managers  of  the  charity, 
those  who  take  charge  of  it,  who  conduct  it,  and  who  distribute  it.  Managers  aie 
essentially  necessary,  because  there  are  no  certain  persons  taking  a  temporal  interest 
in  the  property.  And,  lastly,  there  are  the  beneficiaries  among  whom  the  property 
is  distributed,  according  to  the  purpose  of  the  charity,  the  use  which  was  originally 
impressed  upon  it.  The  management  of  the  charity  is  according  to  the  scheme  or 
plan  which  was  originally  impressed  upon  it  by  the  founders,  or  where  it  is  of  a  gene- 
ral nature,  and  a  charity  at  large  as  it  is  called,  a  court  of  equity  which  protects  all 
kinds  of  uses,  takes  charge  of  it  and  establishes  a  scheme.  Such  a  scheme  will  be 
found  in  the  case  of  Mdgridge  vs.  Thackwell,  in  7  Vesey's  Reports. 

These  beneficiaries  in  this  case  have  no  vested  estate,  no  fixed  right,  and  hence 
they  have  no  power  of  alienation.  They  cannot  dispose  of  this  property.  Suppose, 
before  any  division  of  this  Church  took  place,  all  the  superannuated  and  supernume- 
rary ministers  of  the  Church  for  the  time  being,  all  who  come  within  the  description 
of  the  beneficiaries  of  this  charity,  had  undertaken  to  alienate,  what  would  the  alien- 
ation have  been  good  for  1  The  attempt  would  have  been  perfectly  visionary.  They 
would  have  had  no  right  to  do  it.  They  have  no  right,  except  as  they  answer  the 
description  of  the  beneficiaries,  to  receive  from  time  to  time  the  income  or  profits  of 
the  fund,  as  it  is  dealt  out  by  the  managers  in  the  administration  of  the  charity. 
Their  right,  therefore,  is  enforced  and  managed  by  the  managers  of  the  charity  ac- 
cording to  the  scheme,  and  their  right  too  in  a  court  of  equity,  wherever  it  comes 
into  dispute  or  difficulty,  as  between  them  and  the  trustees,  managers  or  founders,  is 
protected  by  the  attorney-general.  Your  Honours  will  find  in  the  case  of  Duke  vs. 
Fuller,  9  New-Hampshire  Reports,  536,  a  case  which  will  fully  illustrate  this  sub- 
ject. That  was  the  case  of  a  charitable  use,  in  which  the  beneficiaries  of  the  charity 
undertook  to  dissolve  the  institution  altogether,  and  to  divide  the  funds  among  them- 
selves individually.  A  bill  was  filed  by  the  attorney-general  in  order  to  deprive  them 
of  the  property  which  they  had  thus  taken  and  appropriated  among  themselves,  to  es- 
tablish the  charity,  and  to  have  a  plan  devised  and  adopted  for  the  administration  of 
it.  The  claim  in  that  case  was  enforced  by  the  Court.  Well,  if  in  the  case  cited, 
as  the  counsel  on  the  other  side  seem  to  think  is  the  case 'here,  the  property  really 
belonged  to  these  beneficiaries ;  if  they  had  acquired  it,  and  they  were  to  be  con- 
sidered as  tenants  in  common  of  the  fund,  they  would  have  had  a  right  to  divide  it, 
to  dispose  of  it  as  they  pleased,  each  individual  to  alienate  his  share.  But  if  it  is 
\inder  a  charitable  use,  and  if  they  are  entitled  to  nothing  more  than  a  portion  of  the 
funds  as  administered  under  the  charity,  then  they  take  them  whenever  they  are 
doled  out  in  that  way ;  and  they  have  no  other  right,  except  what  is  derived  in  that 
manner  under  the  management  of  the  charity. 

This  law  of  charitable  use  is  enforced  in  this  State  and  in  this  country.  It  has 
been  involved,  I  admit,  in  a  good  deal  of  doubt  and  difficulty  heretofore  But  I  be- 
lieve it  has  come  now  to  be  thoroughly  understood.  You  will  find  it  adopted  in  tbu 
State  in  the  case  of  the  Garden-street  church,  7  Paige,  78  ;  and  you  will  find  that 
the  chancellor,  too,  in  that  case,  takes  back  some  positions  which  he  had  advanced 
in  another  case  at  an  earlier  period.  You  will  find  it  further  devolved  in  the  case 
of  Shotwell  vs.  Mott,  2  Sandford's  Chancery  Reports,  page  46,  and  in  Vulcan  vs. 
Yates,  3  Barbour's  Chancery  Reports,  242.  I  will  not  detain  the  Court  with  read- 
ing these  authorities — you  will  have  an  opportunity  of  referring  to  them  at  your  lei- 
sure. This  doctrine  has  now  been  adopted  and  fully  settled  in  the  United  States 
Courts.  This  was  done  in  the  case  of  Vidall  vs.  Girard's  Executors,  2  Howard's 
Reports,  195.  The  subject  had  been  enveloped  in  some  doubt  by  a  decision  made 


294 

by  that  Court  in  the  Baptist  Association  vs.  Hart's  Executors,  4  Wheaton's  Re- 
ports. In  this  case  a  doubt  had  been  raised,  whether  these  charitable  uses  were 
recognised  at  all  by  the  law  of  England,  except  as  they  were  protected  and  enforced 
under  the  statute  of  Elizabeth.  In  the  case  of  Burr's  Executors  vs.  Smith,  7  Ver- 
mont Reports,  where  the  subject  was  investigated,  that  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  the  4th  of  Wheaton  was  not  followed,  and  a  vast  variety  of  authorities  were 
cited,  showing  conclusively  that  this  law  of  charitable  use  existed  in  England  long 
prior  to  the  statute  of  Elizabeth ;  and  there  was  as  much  evidence,  I  think  I  may 
venture  to  say  more  evidence,  in  support  of  that  head  of  equity  existing  anterior  to 
the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  than  of  any  other  equity  doctrine  whatever  that  can  be  ad- 
duced. That  case  of  the  Baptist  Association,  however,  was  regarded  in  various 
State  courts  as  authority  for  some  time,  but  it  was  finally  abandoned  in  the  case  in 
2  Howard.  I  will  refer  the  Court  to  a  case  in  Georgia,  Beale  vs.  Fox,  4  Georgia 
Reports,  404,  where  you  will  find  that  subject  ably  treated  and  fully  investigated  ; 
and  I  think  it  may  now  be  put  down  as  settled,  that  this  law  of  charitable  uses  exists 
at  common  law,  independently  of  the  statute  of  Elizabeth,  and  that  it  is  enforced 
wherever  the  common  law  prevails,  and  wherever  charities  exist  of  this  public  kind, 
although  the  statute  of  Elizabeth  may  not  have  been  introduced. 

A  question,  however,  arises  here  which  I  shall  briefly  consider,  because  it  is  of 
some  importance  to  the  case,  and  that  is,  whether  this  law  has  been  repealed  in  this  State 
by  the  Revised  Statutes.  This  charity  was  created,  of  course,  long  prior  to  the  in- 
troduction of  these  Revised  Statutes.  But  it  may  be  said,  if  it  has  been  repealed  by 
the  Revised  Statutes,  all  the  property  of  this  Book  Concern  acquired  since  such 
repeal,  and  which  is  now  held  by  subsequent  acquisitions,  is  not  protected  by  the  law 
of  charitable  use.  I  must  admit  in  candour  that  there  has  been  one  decision  in  one 
of  our  Supreme  Courts — I  mean  one  of  those  various  Supreme  Courts  which  have 
been  lately  created  in  this  State — which  goes  the  length  of  declaring  that  they  have 
been  repealed.  But  I  apprehend  it  has  not  yet  gained  such  a  footing  in  this  State 
as  to  be  considered  as  settled  law  ;  and  I  think  your  Honours  will  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  it  is  entirely  fallacious.  There  are  two  grounds  upon  which  this  doc- 
trine rests.  One  is,  that  the  chapter  in  the  Revised  Statutes  which  treats  of  trusts 
begins  by  stating  that  all  trusts  are  abolished,  except  those  contained  in  that  chapter. 
Your  Honours  arc  perfectly  aware  that  general  words  are  always  construed  in  refer- 
ence to  the  particular  subject-matter ;  and  you  will  find  that  that  whole  chapter 
treats  of  private  trusts,  not  of  public  trusts  and  public  uses,  which  are  entirely  differ- 
ent ;  and  it  is  confined,  too,  to  private  trusts  of  real  property.  It  does  not  touch 
personal  estate  ;  it  does  not  touch  charitable  uses.  Every  man,  who  is  at  all  fami- 
liar with  the  doctrine  of  charitable  uses,  knows  perfectly  well  that  it  is  as  different 
from  the  law  of  private  trusts  as  public  crimes  are  different  from  private  trespasses. 
And  you  might  just  as  well  contend  that  a  statute  which  made  especial  provision  in 
regard  to  private  trespasses,  covered  and  applied  to  public  crimes,  as  to  say  that  a 
statute  which  makes  provision  in  regard  to  private  trusts  of  real  property,  has  any 
bearing  upon  public  charitable  rises.  They  are  entirely  different  in  their  nature  and 
in  their  character.  They  are  always  treated  differently,  and  they  are  generally  treated 
in  authors  separately  and  distinctly.  I  took  occasion  the  other  day  to  look  over  the 
law  of  trust  as  it  is  explained  in  "  Tickling  on  Equitable  Estates,"  the  object  of  which 
is  to  show  the  analogy  between  equitable  interests  created  by  trusts,  and  legal  estates. 
There  is  not  one  word  in  that  book  upon  the  subject  of  charitable  uses.  And  on  the 
contrary,  in  works  which  treat  of  charitable  uses,  such  as  Duke  and  Shelford,  you 
find  nothing  on  the  subject  of  private  trusts,  unless  it  is  in  some  particular  case  where 
an  analogy  exists,  and  where  it  is  followed  out. 


295 

There  is  another  ground  relied  upon  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  all  these  cases 
of  charitable  uses  are  repealed  by  the  Revised  Statutes,  and  that  is  the  provision 
which  is  contained  in  those  statutes  in  regard  to  perpetuities.  They  are  brought 
within  narrower  limits.  The  alienation  of  property  shall  not  be  prevented  now  be- 
yond two  lives  in  being  at  the  creation  of  the  estate,  and  inasmuch  as  in  the  case  of 
charitable  uses  the  equitable  interest  is  in  perpetuity,  it  has  been  held  that  that 
repeals  the  whole  doctrine  of  charitable  uses.  May  it  please  your  Honours,  the  law 
of  perpetuity  itself  as  it  has  always  been  understood  in  England  and  in  this  country, 
was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  existence  of  these  charitable  uses.  It  was  never 
considered  as  extending  to  these  public  uses  beyond  the  legal  estate,  and  yet  the  law 
of  perpetuity  has  always  been  enforced.  Before  the  creation  of  this  provision  in  the 
Revised  Statutes,  the  restriction  in  alienation  extended  only  to  lives  in  being  at  the 
creation  of  the  estate  ;  but  the  Revised  Statutes  confined  it  to  two  lives,  and  that  is 
the  difference  between  them.  Well,  now,  will  it  be  pretended  that  a  mere  alteration 
in  the  law  of  perpetuity,  as  to  the  time  of  its  continuance,  has  the  effect  of  extending 
it  to  a  subject  which  was  never  embraced  in  that  law  at  all — to  a  public  use  1  Your 
Honours  are  aware  that  after  the  decision  upon  Thellison's  will,  the  Thellison  act 
was  passed,  which  made  an  alteration,  and  imposed  some  new  restrictions  upon  the 
law  of  perpetuity,  but  what  lawyer  in  Westminster  Hall  ever  dreamed  that  that 
altered  and  destroyed  the  law  of  charitable  uses  1  Now,  why  should  an  alteration  in 
the  mere  time  of  continuance  of  the  perpetuity  in  our  statutes  have  the  effect  of 
abolishing  the  law  of  charitable  uses  T  Real  estate  could  always  be  alienated  under 
the  law  of  charitable  uses,  but  it  is  done  under  the  sanction  of  a  court  of  chancery. 
If  the  alienation  of  the  legal  estate  in  real  property,  therefore,  was  protected,  under 
the  law  of  perpetuity,  it  could  not  be  bound  up  beyond  the  limits  which  the  law  of 
perpetuity  allowed.  The  equitable  use  was  always  an  exception  to  that  law,  so  far 
forth  as  the  equitable  use  continued  attached  to  the  property  in  which  the  proceeds 
of  the  alienation  was  invested,  and  I  apprehend  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Revised 
Statutes  which  has,  in  any  particular  whatever,  altered  that  exception  ;  and  that  you 
will,  therefore,  consider  in  this  case,  that  the  law  of  charitable  use  applies  to  all  this 
property,  as  well  that  which  has  been  acquired  since  as  that  which  was  acquired  be- 
fore the  Revised  Statutes  went  into  effect. 

It  is  true,  in  some  few  cases,  since  the  adoption  of  that  code,  the  legislature  have 
authorized  and  regulated  the  holding  of  this  kind  of  property,  but  it  has  been  done  at 
the  instance  of  applicants,  out  of  abundant  caution.  In  the  same  way  special  pro- 
visions have  been  inserted  in  manufacturing  charters,  like  those  in  the  general  act, 
applicable  to  all  such  companies.  It  would  be  a  poor  compliment  to  the  revisers  who 
assisted  in  framing  that  code,  to  suppose  that  they  would  recommend  the  entire  aboli- 
tion of  this  law,  and  throw  all  the  property  invested — and  which,  from  the  nature  of 
things,  will  continue  to  be  invested  in  that  way  while  Christianity  lasts — completely 
afloat. 

Having  considered  the  general  elements  of  a  charitable  use,  with  a  view  to  this 
claim  for  a  division  of  the  property,  I  shall  next  consider  them  in  reference  to  this 
particular  case.  You  will  find  here  all  the  elements  which  I  have  already  considered 
as  existing  ordinarily  in  the  creation  of  a  charitable  use.  You  have  the  founders  of 
this  charity.  Who  are  the  founders  1  Those  who  originally  advanced  the  funds  ; 
and  you  have  those,  too,  who  have  subsequently  taken  up  those  funds,  and  by  indus- 
try, exertion,  and  cultivation,  have  improved  and  enlarged  them  from  some  3,000  or 
4,000  dollars,  to  some  700,000  or  800,000.  All  these  persons  are  the  contributors  to 
this  charity.  Some,  perhaps,  originally  contributed  money ;  others  have  contributed 
their  services  and  labours ;  but  they  all  constitute  contrir  utions  to  this  charitable 


296 

fund  ;  and  all  who  have  participated  in  the  original  creation  or  in  the  accumulation 
of  this  fund,  are  to  be  considered  as  the  contributors  of  this  charity.  You  have,  in 
the  next  place,  the  trustees  to  hold  the  legal  estate  subject  to  this  trust.  They  are 
now  brought  before  this  Court  as  defendants  to  this  suit.  It  sometimes  happens  that 
more  than  one  of  these  different  offices  or  functions  are  vested  in  the  same  persons. 
Sometimes  the  trustees  are  also  the  managers  of  the  charity.  Sometimes  they  are 
distinct.  In  this  case  the  functions  are  distinct.  The  managers  of  this  charity  are 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America — the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  an  organized,  ecclesiastical  institution,  acting  in  an  organized 
form.  There  is  one  additional  peculiarity  about  this  charity,  to  which  I  will  call  the 
attention  of  the  Court,  and  that  is,  that  the  managers  of  the  charity  themselves  exist 
under  the  law  of  charitable  uses.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  an  ecclesias- 
tical body,  entitled  to  hold  property,  entitled  to  temporalities,  entitled  to  legal  privi- 
leges, holds  them  all  under  the  law  of  charitable  or  pious  uses,  and  the  institution 
itself  exists  under  that  law.  In  this  case,  however,  we  are  to  look  upon  them  prin- 
cipally as  the  managers  of  this  charity.  And  how  are  they  to  manage  it  1  They 
manage  it  through  their  General  Conference  and  their  annual  conferences,  all 
participating,  in  their  respective  spheres,  in  the  management  of  this  concern,  and  in 
the  distribution  of  the  profits  among  the  beneficaries.  The  General  Conference 
performs  its  functions.  It  takes  the  general  direction  and  superintendency  over  the 
whole  concern ;  it  appoints  the  trustees  and  changes  the  trustees.  The  annual 
conferences  perform  their  functions.  They  seek  out  the  beneficiaries  who  are 
entitled  to  relief,  and  in  their  respective  local  jurisdictions,  after  receiving  from 
the  trustees  their  respective  shares  of  the  income,  distribute  those  shares  among  the 
various  beneficiaries  within  their  respective  local  jurisdictions.  Here  you  have  the 
managers  of  this  fund.  In  the  last  place,  you  have  the  beneficiaries.  Who  are  they  ? 
They  are  the  superannuated  and  supernumerary  travelling  preachers  of  the  Church, 
their  wives  and  children,  and,  in  the  case  of  death,  their  widows  and  children.  They 
are  the  beneficiaries  of  this  charity.  They  take  this  income  as  it  is  thus  doled  out 
in  charity,  and  they  take  it  as  answering  the  description  of  beneficiaries.  They 
must  be  designatio  personanim  of  the  charity,  to  entitle  them  to  take  anything ;  and 
if  they  do  not  answer  that  description,  they  are  entitled  to  nothing.  What  is  that 
description  1  Is  it  all  poor  persons,  paupers,  who  happen  to  be  within  the  territorial 
jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1  Not  at  all.  Is  it  all  ministers  who 
are  superannuated,  and  who  are  entitled  to  relief  on  a  claim  of  relief!  Not  at  all. 
Is  it  all  Methodist  ministers  1  By  no  means.  It  is  the  superannuated  and  supernu- 
merary ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  that  body  thus  organized — 
that  body  under  whose  auspices  this  fund  was  originally  created,  and  under  whose 
management  and  direction  this  fund  has  subsequently  accumulated.  They  are  the 
beneficiaries.  They  must  answer  that  description  to  entitle  them  to  take.  If  they 
do  not  answer  it,  they  cannot  take.  In  order  to  answer  to  that  description,  what 
must  they  be!  They  must  be  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  what  is 
this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1  It  is  a  unity.  It  is  a  body,  not  exactly  incorpo- 
rated under  the  law,  but  it  is  a  body  possessing,  to  a  certain  extent — so  far  as  respects 
its  charitable  purposes,  and  in  a  court  of  equity,  and  in  reference  to  property — a 
corporate  capacity.  It  has  precisely  in  equity  that  sort  of  a  capacity,  which  an 
association  of  individuals,  who  are  not  a  mere  partnership  or  a  tenancy  in  common, 
at  law  have,  when  they  are  at  liberty  to  act  in  a  certain  collective  capacity,  if  not 
actually  clothed  with  all  the  powers  and  attributes  of  a  corporation.  Your  Honours 
arc  aware  of  the  existence  of  that  class  of  bodies  generally  called  quasi  corporations, 
and  that  is  the  character  in  a  court  of  equity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


297 

And  in  all  charitable  uses,  the  bodies  and  individuals  when  they  take  under  the  cha- 
rity, in  succession,  take  in  that  quasi  corporate  capacity. 

I  will  refer  the  Court,  upon  this  subject,  to  a  passage  or  two,  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Court,  in  the  case  of  Decow  vs.  Hendrickson.  It  is  fully  reported,  but  not  hi  any 
regular  Book  of  Reports.  It  is  a  leading  case  in  this  country  upon  this  subject ;  and 
the  opinion  is  collected  in  a  book,  as  it  was  delivered  in  the  Court  below,  by  Chief 
Justice  Ewing,  who,  as  every  one  acquainted  with  him  knows,  was  a  very  profound 
lawyer.  He  bestowed  upon  this  subject  a  vast  deal  of  attention.  I  will  read  from 
pp.  21  and  39  of  the  opinion.  He  is  describing  the  yearly  meeting  of  the  Society  of 
Friends,  which  is  held  in  Philadelphia,  which  was  never  incorporated.  It  was  an 
ecclesiastical  institution.  The  property  in  question,  in  this  case,  was  under  that  re- 
ligious institution,  the  yearly  meeting  being  at  its  head.  The  question  which  arose 
in  that  case  was,  which  of  the  subordinate  meetings,  which  had  become  divided,  and 
claimed  this  property,  was  entitled  to  it.  In  order  to  settle  that  question,  as  there 
had  been  a  division  in  the  head  of  the  Church,  the  yearly  meeting — which,  in  this 
particular,  answers  £o  this  General  Conference  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — 
it  became  important  to  inquire  into  the  character  of  that  body,  and  which  of  those 
two  separate  institutions  was  the  legitimate  yearly  meeting.  What  I  now  read  is 
the  description  he  gives  of  that  body,  as  a  charitable  use  protected  under  its  law,  and 
according  to  which  law  that  case  was  to  be  decided.  He  says,  at  page  21, — 

"  This  body  was  not  a  mere  incidental,  casual,  disconnected  assemblage,  convening 
without  previous  arrangement,  ceasing  to  exist  when  its  members  separated,  and 
formed  anew  when  individuals  came  together  again  at  some  subsequent  tune.  It 
was  a  regularly  organized  and  established  body,  holding  stated  sessions,  correspond- 
ing with  other  bodies  of  the  same  religious  denomination,  consulting  together  for  the 
welfare  of  a  portion  of  their  Church  and  its  members,  the  ultimate  arbiter  of  all  dif- 
ferences, and  the  common  head  and  governor  of  all  belonging  to  the  Society  of 
Friends  within  its  jurisdiction,  which  extended  over  the  territories  just  mentioned, 
while  they  were  called  Provinces,  and  since  they  assumed  the  name  and  rank  of 
States.  The  meetings  of  this  body  were  annually  held,  as  its  name  imports,  and  as 
long  and  steady  usage  has  wrought  into  a  part  of  its  structure.  The  time  and  place 
of  convention  are  subject  to  its  control,  and  have  accordingly,  in  several  instances, 
been  fixed  and  altered  by  it.  The  time  and  place,  however,  when  and  where  only  the 
body  can  constitutionally  assemble  and  act,  must,  when  fixed,  so  remain,  until  the 
voice  of  the  body,  in  a  yearly  meeting  capacity,  which  alone  has  the  power  and  right 
to  govern  its  own  proceedings,  shall  resolve  on  and  enact  a  change." 

I  will  read  another  passage  from  p.  39.  Speaking  of  a  resolution  of  this  body,  he 
says  : — 

"  The  resolve  was  an  act,  not  of  private  or  individual  benevolence,  but  of  this 
meeting  in  its  collective  capacity." 

If  this  meeting  is  to  be  considered  an  organized  body,  having  existence  in  an  or- 
ganized form,  and  as  such  performing  functions  and  having  a  "  collective  capacity," 
the  consequence  is  that  it  is  of  a  corporate  character  so  far.  You  will  find  this  same 
doctrine  laid  down  in  Shelford  on  Montmaine,  p.  712.  The  case  of  M'Gurr  vs.  Aaron, 
in  2d  Pennsylvania  Reports,  was  one  where  this  same  doctrine  came  up.  In 
that  case  the  property  was  limited  to  the  support  of  a  minister  of  a  certain  Church 
and  his  successors.  Why,  your  Honours  are  aware  that  no  property  can  be  limited 
in  that  way,  under  any  legal  title,  or  in  any  creation  of  any  private  trust,  and  in  such 
cases  the  property  cannot  go  to  successors.  Yet,  under  this  law  of  charitable  use,  it 
can  be  limited  to  the  successors.  In  these  cases  of  charitable  uses,  the  majority,  as  a 
general  rule,  dispose  of  the  property,  and  that  doctrine  is  laid  down  in  Shelford  on 
Charitable  Uses,  p.  712.  But  in  the  case  of  private  property  held  by  a  private  asso- 


s 


298 

elation  of  individuals,  a  majority  cannot  control  it.  Each  one  has  a  right,  as  a  tenant 
in  common,  to  his  respective  share,  and  he  can  alienate  that  right.  But  the  majority 
of  the  individuals  have  no  control  over  it.  But  that  is  not  so  in  the  case  of  a  chari- 
table use.  An  attempt  was  made,  in  a  private  association,  to  transfer  the  property 
by  a. majority,  without  all  joining,  and  it  was  decided  to  be  unavailable,  in  the  case  of 
Livingston  vs.  Lynch,  4  Johnson's  Reports,  573. 

If  I  am  right  in  this  view  of  the  subject,  then  we  have  a  case  where  these  benefi- 
ciaries take  no  vested  title  ;  nothing  that  they  can  dispose  of ;  nothing  that  they  can 
claim  in  any  other  way  than  simply  under  the  management  of  this  charity,  and  they 
must  necessarily  answer  the  description  of  the  objects  of  the  charity.  How  do  they 
overcome  this  doctrine  on  the  other  side  1  On  what  does  that  decision  in  the  Mays- 
ville  case  rest  1  The  gentleman  tells  us  that  this  property  is  not  given — that  it  is  no 
donation — that  it  was  acquired  by  these  travelling  preachers  1  Suppose  it  was ; 
does  that  alter  the  case  1  Who  were  to  claim  it  1  Can  the  travelling  ministers 
claim  it  1  Have  they  in  fact  devoted  the  fund  to  their  own  private  use,  as  an  asso- 
ciation of  individuals  1  Nothing  like  it.  On  the  contrary,  the^  have  devoted  it  to  a 
certain  purpose,  and  that  is,  such  that  the  income  is  to  be  bestowed  upon  the  superan- 
nuated, supernumerary  travelling  ministers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children. 
These  are  the  individuals  upon  whom  it  is  bestowed.  These  are  the  persons  who  are 
entitled  to  the  income.  The  travelling  ministers,  therefore,  cannot  claim  it.  It  is, 
so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  a  donation  by  them  to  the  Church,  and  they,  the  trus- 
tees, hold  it  in  trust,  not  for  them  as  donors  and  founders,  but  for  the  individuals  who 
are  the  objects  of  charity.  It  is,  therefore,  just  as  much  a  case  of  donation,  as  if  one 
individual  should  bestow  a  capital  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars,  for  the  purpose  of 
applying  the  income  to  the  support  of  these  supernumerary  and  superannuated  minis- 
ters. It  is  no  answer  to  this  to  tell  us,  that  some  of  these  persons  who  become  su- 
pernumerary and  superannuated  ministers,  may  originally  have  contributed  a  portion 
of  this  fund.  That  does  not  alter  the  case.  That  gives  them  no  greater  right,  nor 
does  it  deprive  them  of  any  benefit. 

Let  me  illustrate  my  view  of  the  case  upon  this  branch  of  the  subject,  because  it  is 
a  main  point  on  the  other  side.  Let  us  suppose  a  class  of  mechanics  in  New- York — 
for  instance,  masons — should  create  a  fund  ;  that  each  should  contribute  a  certain 
sum,  say  five  dollars  a  year ;  that  it  should  be  put  into  the  hands  of  trustees  to  be 
managed  ;  that  a  certain  religious  society  should  be  appointed  managers  of  that  fund  ; 
and  that  the  profits  should,  from  time  to  time,  be  distributed  among  the  superannu- 
ated mechanics  of  that  description,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children  :  would  not  that 
be  a  charitable  use  1  Unquestionably  it  would.  Here  would  be  a  donation.  It 
would  not  be  a  donation  of  one  individual,  or  of  a  few  individuals  ;  it  would  be  a  do- 
nation by  a  body  of  men.  It  would  be  a  donation  devoted  to  a  charity.  It  would  be 
a  donation  devoted  to  persons  answering  a  certain  description.  They  would  be,  of 
course,  a  portion  of  those  who  had  originally  contributed,  some  more,  some  less,  some 
perhaps  lately  come  in,  and  become  superannuated,  before  they  contributed  anything 
at  all :  it  would  be  a  charitable  use.  It  would  have  all  the  elements  of  a  charity  ;  it 
would  have  the  donors,  the  trustees,  the  managers,  and  the  beneficiaries. 

Let  me  suppose  another  case.  Suppose  that  some  fifty  of  these  mechanics  should 
contribute  certain  funds,  that  should  be  put  into  the  hands  of  trustees  to  be  managed 
for  the  purposes  of  speculation,  and  the  profits  to  be  divided,  not  among  certain  be- 
neficiaries, objects  of  charity,  who  answer  a  certain  description,  from  time  to  time, 
but  among  the  donors  themselves,  in  proportion  to  their  respective  shares.  Here  they 
would  be  entitled  to  it  as  tenants  in  common.  They  would  have  private  rights. 
They  would  have  the  power  of  alienating  their  respective  portions  of  the  fund,  and 


299 

bringing  in  others  as  their  alienees,  as  tenants  in  common,  and  be  entitled,  at  any 
time,  to  make  a  division  of  that  property,  and  on  a  division,  each  would  take  a  rata- 
ble proportion  of  the  original  funds  and  property  of  the  concern,  with  the  accumula- 
tions. That  illustrates  the  distinction  between  these  tenancies  in  common  in  a  private 
trust,  and  a  case  of  charitable  use.  In  the  latter  case,  all  would  have  to  join  in  a 
suit ;  all  could  bring  a  suit ;  all  might  alienate  the  entire  property  ;  any  one  indi- 
vidual could  alienate  his  portion  of  the  property  at  any  time ;  and  it  would  be  per- 
fectly immaterial  whether  they  held  it  at  law  or  in  equity,  because  there  is  a  complete 
analogy  between  private  trusts  in  equity  and  a  legal  estate  as  protected  by  the  com- 
mon law.  But  in  the  case  of  a  charitable  use  it  is  entirely  different  ;  and 'I  will  take 
the  liberty,  in  order  to  explain  this  doctrine  further,  and  show  the  distinction,  to  refer 
your  Honours  to  the  existence  of  this  doctrine  as  it  stood  before  it  was  introduced 
into  the  common  law.  I  will  read  from  7  Vermont  Reports,  846  : — 

"  The  doctrine  of  charitable  uses  had  its  origin  in  the  civil  law.  Hence  it  spread 
through  the  different  countries  of  modern  Europe. 

"  In  Domat's  Civil  Law,  vol.  2,  pp.  168,  169,  170,  (book  iv,  $  vii,)  are  the  following 
passages  :  '  Legacies  to  pious  uses  are  those  legacies  that  are  destined  to  some  work 
of  charity,  whether  they  relate  to  spiritual  or  temporal  concerns.  Thus  a  legacy  of 
ornaments  for  a  church,  a  legacy  for  the  maintenance  of  a  clergyman,  to  instruct 
poor  children,  and  a  legacy  for  their  sustenance,  are  legacies  to  pious  uses. 

"  '  We  may  make  this  a  just  difference  between  legacies  to  pious  uses  and  the 
other  sorts  of  legacies,  that  the  name  of  legacies  to  pious  uses  is  properly  given  only 
to  those  legacies  which  are  destined  to  some  work  of  piety  and  charity,  and  which 
have  their  motives  independent  of  the  consideration  which  the  merit  of  the  legatees 
might  procure  them ;  whereas  the  other  legacies  have  their  motives  confined  to  the 
consideration  of  some  particular  person,  or  are  destined  to  some  other  use  than  to  a 
work  of  piety  and  charity. 

"  '  All  legacies  which  have  not  for  theur  motive  the  particular  consideration  of  some 
person,  are  not  for  all  that  of  the  number  of  legacies  to  pious  uses,  although  they  be 
destined  for  a  public  good,  if  that  good  be  any  other  than  a  work  of  piety  or  charity. 
Thus  a  legacy  destined  for  some  public  ornament,  such  as  the  gate  of  a  city,  for  the 
embellishment  or  conveniency  of  some  public  place,  and  others  of  the  like  nature,  or 
a  legacy  of  a  prize  to  be  given  to  some  person  who  should  excel  others  in  some  art 
or  science,  would  be  legacies  of  another  nature  than  those  to  pious  uses. 

" '  If  a  pious  legacy  were  destined  to  some  use  which  could  not  have  its  effect — as 
if  a  testator  had  left  a  legacy  for  building  a  church  for  a  parish,  or  an  apartment  in  a 
hospital,  and  it  happened  either  that  before  his  death  the  said  church  or  said  apart- 
ment had  been  built  out  of  some  other  fund,  or  that  it  was  no  ways  necessary  or  use- 
ful— the  legacy  would  not,  for  all  that,  remain  without  any  use,  but  it  would  be  laid 
out  on  other  works  of  piety  for  that  parish  or  for  that  hospital,  according,  to  the  direc- 
tions that  should  be  given  in  this  matter  by  the  persons  to  whom  this  function  should 
belong. 

"  '  Since  legacies  for  works  of  piety  and  charity  have  a  double  favour,  both  that  of 
their  motive  for  holy  and  pious  uses  and  that  of  their  utility  for  the  public  good,  they 
are  considered  as  being  privileged  in  the  intention  of  the  law.'  " 

Your  Honours  see  all  the  elements  of  a  charitable  use  as  it  exists  in  our  courts  of 
equity,  and  as  it  exists  independent  entirely  of  the  statute  of  Elizabeth.  It  was  de- 
rived from  the  civil  law,  into  which  it  was  introduced  by  the  emperors  after  Chris- 
tianity became  the  law  of  the  empire.  It  exists  in  the  nature  of  things  wherever 
Christianity  exists,  because  wherever  Christianity  does  exist  there  will  be  charity, 
there  will  be  the  founders  of  these  public  charities  for  the  benefit  of  individuals  who 
may  come  into  being  long  after  the  founder  is  laid  in  his  grave.  Therefore,  to  abolish 
this  law,  to  undertake  to  destroy  it,  would  be  nothing  more  nor  less  than  placing  this 
kind  of  property  beyond  the  pale  of  the  law.  That  would  be  the  effect  and  the  only 
effect. 


300 

You  find  that  when  the  court  in  Kentucky  is  freed  from  the  influence  of  this  par- 
ticular subject,  and  is  called  upon  to  decide  on  these  cases,  it  applies  this  doctrine 
very  fully  and  very  forcibly.  I  will  refer  the  Court  to  a  case  in  7  Ben.  Monroe's 
Reports,  611,  618,  and  621,  where  you  will  find  the  doctrine  fully  developed.  That 
was  a  case  of  a  devise  of  property  for  the  dissemination  of  the  Gospel.  Well,  now 
every  lawyer  knows  that  such  a  devise,  such  a  disposition  of  property,  according  to 
any  other  law,  would  be  invalid,  for  want  of  the  requisite  certainty  as  to  persons. 
But  it  was  protected  there  under  the  law  of  charitable  uses,  and  devoted  to  those 
public  and  religious  purposes,  and  a  court  of  equity  would  see  that  it  was  administered 
according"  to  some  scheme  devised  to  carry  the  charity  into  effect. 

I  therefore  submit  to  your  Honours  that  the  view  taken  of  this  subject  on  the  othei 
side,  that  here  is  property  which  has  been  acquired  by  these  beneficiaries,  that  they 
have  a  vested  right  to  it,  and  that  they  can  divide  it  among  themselves,  as  so  many 
tenants  in  common,  is  without  any  foundation,  and  that  they  must,  in  order  to  claim 
this  property,  take  it  as  beneficiaries  answering  the  description  contained  in  the 
foundation  of  this  charity.  Some  of  these  may,  perhaps,  have  contributed  a  little, 
many  of  them  have  contributed  nothing  at  all.  Many  of  these  ministers  who  have 
contributed  may  never  receive  any  of  the  bounty.  In  order  to  entitle  these  plaintiffs, 
as  representing  the  beneficiaries  of  this  Church,  to  recover  any  portion  of  this  fund, 
they  must  make  out,  to  your  satisfaction,  that  they  answer  the  description  of  that 
charity  ;  that  they  are  the  representatives  of  travelling,  supernumerary,  superan- 
nuated ministers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children,  belonging  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  the  institution  which  originally  created  this  charity,  under  which 
it  is  protected,  and  according  to  the  original  principles  upon  which  the  charity  was 
founded.  It  will  not  do  for  them  to  say  they  are  Methodists.  It  will  not  do  for  them 
to  say  that  they  have  adopted  all  the  laws,  and  regulations,  and  discipline,  and 
government,  and  all  the  faith  and  doctrines  that  were  acknowledged  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  which  was  in  existence  when  this  charity  was  formed,  and  under 
whose  auspices  it  has  been  accumulated  to  the  immense  amount  it  has.  It  will  not 
do  for  them  to  advance  any  doctrine  of  that  kind.  But  they  must  make  out  that  at 
the  time  they  filed  the  bill  they  were  members  of  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  that  they  are  entitled,  as  members  of  this  Church,  to  a  portion  of  this  fund,  or 
that  they,  as  agents,  represent  them,  and  that  in  the  administration  of  that  charity 
they  stand  in  that  position. 

Now,  they  tell  us  that  they  do  stand  in  that  position.  There  is  no  difficulty  here 
about  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Church.  The  question  arises  upon  topics  re- 
lating to  the  discipline  and  government.  There  has  been  no  split  in  this  Church 
upon  any  fundamental  rule  of  faith,  or  Christian  belief.  There  is  nothing  of  that 
kind.  But  they  claim  that  they  are  a  portion  of  that  same  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  divided,  and  that  although  they  are  divided,  yet  they  are  sufficiently  identified 
to  entitle  them  to  a  portion  of  the  corpus  of  this  estate,  and  to  entitle  the  persons  an- 
swering the  description  of  being  supernumerary  or  superannuated  ministers,  their 
wives,  widows,  and  children,  as  beneficiaries,  to  take  it.  According  to  the  argument, 
eo  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  gather  it,  they  claim  on  two  grounds  :  First,  on  the 
ground  of  an  agreement  between  the  members  of  this  Church,  thus  constitutionally 
representing  the  whole  Church,  and  composing  its  head — the  General  Conference — 
to  divide  the  Church,  to  form  two  separate  institutions,  and  yet  identical  with  the 
Church,  each  party  representing  it  in  succession  and  continuance,  and  each  party  en- 
titled to  its  ecclesiastical  privileges  and  private  rights  of  property.  In  the  next  place, 
they  contend,  that  if  the  agreement  does  not  amount  to  this,  and  independent  of  the 
agreement  there  has  been  a  division  in  this  Church,  that  that  division  and  separation 


301 

of  this  body  from  the  other,  the  majority,  was  rendered  necessary  and  indispensable 
by  the  misconduct  of  the  defendants,  and  therefore  they  are  entitled  to  a  portion  of 
this  fund  in  equity.  These  I  take  to  be  the  two  grounds  upon  one  or  the  other  of 
which  they  must  rest  their  claim. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  assume  there  was  an  absolute  agreement  to  divide  this 
Church.  That  agreement,  they  tell  us,  is  contained  in  the  report  of  the  committee 
of  nine,  which  was  made  in  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  and  adopted  by  that  body. 
Under  that  agreement  they  say  they  are  entitled  to  set  up  the  Southern  branch, 
which  they  call  a  division  of  the  same  Church,  and  under  which  they  are  entitled,  in 
equity,  to  claim  a  relative  proportion  of  the  corpus,  and  of  course  a  relative  propor- 
tion of  the  profits  of  this  fund.  I  may  here  remark,  that  your  Honours  have  no- 
thing to  do  with  the  ecclesiastical  privileges  any  further  than  as  they  are  connected 
with  the  subject  of  property  ;  but  wherever  a  trust  is  created,  which  trust  is  in  some 
measure  identified  with  or  dependant  upon  the  ecclesiastical  institutions,  you  will 
inquire  into  the  subject  of  these  institutions,  in  order  to  settle  the  question  properly. 
It  is  in  that  way  and  in  that  point  of  view  that  you  get  jurisdiction  over  that  branch 
of  the  subject.  You  are  aware  that  in  all  cases  where  the  Court  has  a  jurisdiction 
over  a  particular  subject,  if  it  becomes  necessary,  in  order  to  settle  the  right  of  pro- 
perty, to  inquire  into  some  collateral  matter  over  which  the  Court  has  no  direct  juris- 
diction at  all,  they  will  investigate  it  in  order  to  settle  that  right  of  property  ;  and  in 
that  point  of  view  a  court  of  common  law  will  inquire  into  a  maritime  subject  when  it 
becomes  necessary  to  do  it,  as  a  collateral  matter,  to  settle  some  question  of  property 
over  which  the  common  law  court  has  direct  jurisdiction.  Mere  ecclesiastical  ques- 
tions you  have  nothing  to  do  with  directly,  and  in  themselves,  and  there  are  no  tri- 
bunals in  this  country  connected  with  the  government  of  the  country  which  have  any 
control  over  them.  There  is  in  this  country  a  complete  separation  of  Church  and 
State.  But  you  will  inquire  into  ecclesiastical  matters  wherever  a  trust  is  created 
which  is  dependant  in  any  measure  upon  the  existence  and  character  of  the  ecclesi- 
astical institutions.  Here  there  is  this  complete  connexion.  This  property  is  placed 
under  the  control  and  direction  of  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They  are  to  be 
the  managers  of  this  fund.  Well,  in  order  to  settle  the  question,  when  two  parties 
claim  the  property,  or  claim  the  control  over  any  portion  of  it,  you  must  inquire  into 
that  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  where  it  is,  who  compose  it,  and  who  are  the  per- 
sons entitled  to  the  direction  of  it.  In  no  other  way  can  you  settle  this  question  of 
property.  You  are  therefore  led,  necessarily,  to  investigate  it  collaterally,  with  the 
view  to  settle  the  question  of  jurisdiction  over  the  property.  You  must  find  out  who 
compose  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  now,  and  at  the  time  this  suit  was  brought. 
Who  are  they  1  Are  they  the  plaintiffs  or  the  defendants  1  Has  it  been  legitimately 
and  legally  divided  in  reference  to  the  matter  of  property,  so  that  both  can  claim  it  ? 
Or  is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  still  connected  and  identified  with  the  defen- 
dants in  this  case  1  If  it  is,  the  plaintiffs  are  entitled  to  nothing.  They  can  claim 
nothing. 

Hence,  you  inquire  into  this  matter,  and  you  will  observe  in  this  case  that  there 
is  something  more  than  a  connexion  arising  from  the  management  of  the  property, 
because  you  find  out  that  these  beneficiaries  must  be  members  of  this  very  Church 
to  entitle  them  to  take.  It  often  happens  that  the  management  of  a  charity  is  in  the 
hands  of  persons  who  are  in  no  way  connected  with  the  beneficiaries,  otherwise  than 
merely  as  individuals  to  conduct  it,  and  to  distribute  the  profits  among  the  benefici- 
aries. But  here  you  see  a  complete  connexion.  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
is  entitled  to  the  management  of  this  charity,  and  not  only  so,  but  it  is  to  be  distributed 
among  beneficiaries,  which  beneficaries  are  to  be,  and  continue  to  be  from  time  to 


302 

time,  members  of  that  very  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They  are,  therefore,  com- 
pletely identified  with  it ;  and  there  is  another  important  consideration,  whenever  a 
a  charity  is  given  to  pious  purposes  to  be  distributed  among  the  officers  of  the  Church, 
it  is  considered  as  given  in  ease  of  the  Church.  You  will  find  that  doctrine  very 
fully  illustrated  in  the  case  of  McGurr  vs.  Aaron,  in  2  Pennsylvania  Reports,  to 
which  I  have  already  referred.  If  property  is  given  to  a  charity  to  be  distributed  in 
support  of  the  ministers  of  a  Church  and  their  successors,  it  is  intended  and  is  con- 
sidered as  being  given  by  the  founders  for  the  benefit  of  the  entire  Church,  and  in 
ease  of  it.  There  is,  therefore,  that  connexion  between  the  Church  in  this  case  and 
the  beneficiaries,  and  it  is  indispensable,  to  come  to  a  right  decision  of  this  case,  that 
you  should  find  out  who  are  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  which  was  in  existence 
at  the  foundation  of  this  charity,  which  has  been  in  existence  during  its  accumulation 
and  continuance,  and  which  was  in  existence  at  the  time  this  suit  was  brought. 

Now,  as  to  the  agreement  to  divide  the  Church,  I  may  say,  in  the  first  place,  that 
I  might  take  this  objection  which  has  already  been  laid  before  the  Court,  that  this 
agreement  is  prospective  and  contingent,  and  has  never  been  consummated  ;  and  the 
further  objection,  that  the  General  Conference,  as  a  delegated  body,  has  no  power, 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  annual  conferences,  to  make  such  a  division.  When 
I  say  they  have  no  power  to  divide  the  Church,  I  speak  in  reference  to  this  property, 
because  the  annual  conferences  are  managers  of  this  charity  as  well  as  the  General 
Conference.  But  waving  for  the  present  the  further  consideration  of  this  branch  of 
the  case,  and  assuming  that  there  had  been  a  present  agreement  instead  of  one  that 
was  executory,  and  that  it  has  been  consummated,  then  an  inquiry  arises,  Has  there 
been  a  division  of  the  Church  1  has  there  been  any  agreement  to  that  effect  7  This 
split  in  the  Church  may  have  been  effected  by  an  agreement  in  two  ways  : — it  may 
have  been  an  agreement  to  divide  the  Church  into  two  separate  branches,  creating 
two  new  Churches  in  the  place  of  the  one  which  before  existed  ;  or  it  may  have  been 
an  agreement  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  remain,  and  that  this 
other  portion  should  be  detached  from  it,  and  should  form  a  separate  independent 
Church.  Your  Honours  will  see  at  once  that  there  is  a  vast  difference  between 
these  two  modes  of  proceeding.  The  first  would  necessarily  destroy  that  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  which  was  previously  in  existence,  and  would  form  two  new 
Churches  in  the  place  of  it.  The  last  would  leave  that  Church  in  existence  already 
formed  and  operating,  and  there  would  be  a  mere  division  or  separation  from  it,  to 
form  a  new  and  separate  Church,  leaving  the  old  body  to  stand,  and  leaving  the  new 
to  be  formed  and  created  into  a  separate,  distinct,  and  new  body.  There  is  just  the 
difference  in  this  case  that  there  would  be  between  cutting  off  a  man's  leg,  leaving 
the  person  remaining,  and  dividing  the  body,  and  thus  destroying  it ;  the  difference 
between  maiming  a  man  and  killing  him. 

If  this  matter  of  agreement  is  allowed  to  speak  for  itself,  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
discovering  what  was  intended.  I  will  refer  your  Honours  to  the  first  volume  of 
these  Proofs,  p.  129,  where  we  have  the  so-called  "  Plan  of  Separation."  It  is  upcn 
this  that  the  plaintiffs  stand,  and  must  stand,  if  they  can  stand  at  all,  and  if  I  com- 
prehend it,  they  leave  the  old  Church  remaining,  and  they  separate  from  it,  and  form 
a  new  Church.  I  read  the  2d  resolution  : — 

"  That  ministers,  local  and  travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame, 
attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South." 

"  They  may  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame,  attach  themselves  to  the 
Church,  South."  Can  anybody  misunderstand  this1?  Did  they  not  intend  that  that 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  should  still  continue  in  existence,  that  it  should  remain, 
and  that  they,  in  case  their  Southern  conferences  found  it  necessary,  should  form  a 
new  and  separate  Church,  to  be  the  Church,  South  1  Read  the  4th  resolution  : — 

"  That  whenever  the  annual  conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all 
their  members  voting  on  the  third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred  in  the  re- 
commendation to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the  agents  at  New-York  and 
Cincinnati  shall,  and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  over  to  any 
authorized  agent  or  appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should  one  be  organized,  all 
notes  and  book  accounts  against  the  ministers,  Church-members,  or  citizens  within 
its  boundaries,  with  authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use  of  the  Southern 
Church,  and  that  said  agents  also  convey  to  the  aforesaid  agent  or  appointee  of  the 
South  all  the  real  estate,  and  assign  to  him  all  the  property,  including  presses,  stock, 
and  all  right  and  interest  connected  with  the  printing  establishments  at  Charleston, 
Richmond,  and  Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

And  you  will  find  that  throughout  this  whole  agreement  they  speak  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  as  intended  to  remain,  and  treat  themselves  as  separated  from  it, 
and  as  forming  a  new  Church,  South.  Well  they  go  on.  At  Louisville  they  form 
this  Church,  and  how  do  they  consider  it  ?  Let  us  look  at  the  2d  volume  of  Proofs, 
p.  59.  They  resolve, — 

"  That  it  is  right,  expedient,  and  necessary,  to  erect  the  annual  conferences  repre- 
sented in  this  Convention,  into  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connexion,  separate  from  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  at  pre- 
sent constituted;  and  accordingly,  we,  the  delegates  of  said  annual  conferences, 
acting  under  the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation  adopted  by  the  General  Conference 
of  1844,  do  solemnly  declare  the  jurisdiction  exercised  over  said  annual  conferences, 
by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  entirely  dissolved ; 
and  that  said  annual  conferences  shall  be  and  they  hereby  are  constittited,  a  separate 
ecclesiastical  Connexion,  under  the  provisional  Plan  of  Separation  aforesaid,  and 
based  upon  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  comprehending  the 
doctrines  and  entire  moral,  ecclesiastical,  and  economical  rules  and  regulations  of 
said  Discipline,  except  only  in  so  far  as  verbal  alterations  may  be  necessary  to  a 
distinct  organization,  and  to  be  known  by  the  style  and  title  of  the  METHODIST 
EPISCOPAL  CHURCH,  SOUTH." 

Can  anybody  read  this  without  seeing  what  the  design  is  7 — that  they  mean  to 
leave  the  old  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  stand,  and  that  they  mean  they  will 
separate  from  it  and  form  a  new  Connexion,  speaking  of  themselves  as  separatists 
and  taking  the  new  name  of  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

Well,  now,  we  have  their  agreement.  The  purpose  is  too  plain  to  be  mistaken. 
It  speaks  for  itself.  I  am  aware  it  has  been  stated  in  that  Maysville  case,  that  a 
Church  may  change  its  name,  and  that,  therefore,  the  name  is  a  matter  of  very  little 
importance.  But  I  apprehend,  that  when  a  Church  does  not  change  its  name ; 
where  the  name  remains,  and  where  a  portion  goes  off,  separates,  and  takes  a  new 
organization  and  a  new  name,  leaving  the  old  name  and  old  organization  to  remain, 
that  is  a  circumstance  of  very  considerable  importance,  and  ought  to  be  attended  to 
in  all  cases  of  this  kind.  And  I  think  the  Court  will  have  no  hesitation  in  coming  to 
the  conclusion,  that  the  intention  here  of  the  parties  in  this  agreement,  and  as  carried 
out  by  the  Southern  conferences,  at  the  Louisville  Convention,  was  that  the  Church 
should  remain  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  that  a  new  Church  should  be 
formed,  and  that  they  should  be  looked  upon  as  separatists,  and  take  a  new  name. 
Well,  what  is  the  effect  of  such  a  separation  by  agreement  between  the  parties  '• 
If  any  subject  can  be  considered  as  settled,  I  apprehend  this  is  settled  by  the  law 
of  the  land,  that  they  leave  behind  them,  under  such  an  agreement,  the  property  of 
the  Church,  which  belongs  to  the  body  that  remains.  I  will  take  the  liberty  of  reading 


304 

a  passage  from  a  case  which  was  referred  to  by  the  counsel  concerned  with  me,  the 
case  of  Baker  vs.  Fales,  16  Massachusetts  Reports,  p.  503  : — 

"  If  a  Church  may  subsist  unconnected  with  any  congregation  or  religious  society, 
as  has  been  urged  in  argument,  it  is  certain  that  it  has  no  legal  qualities,  and  more 
especially  that  it  cannot  exercise  any  control  over  property  which  it  may  have  held 
in  trust  for  the  society  with  which  it  had  been  formerly  connected.  That  any  num- 
ber of  the  members  of  a  Church,  who  disagree  with  their  brethren,  or  with  the  minis- 
ter, or  with  the  parish,  may  withdraw  from  fellowship  with  them,  and  act  as  a  Church 
in  a  religious  point  of  view,  having  the  ordinances  administered  and  other  religious 
offices  performed,  it  is  not  necessary  to  deny  ;  indeed  this  would  be  a  question  pro- 
per for  an  ecclesiastical  council  to  settle,  if  any  should  dispute  their  claim.  But  as 
to  all  civil  purposes,  the  secession  of  a  whole  Church  from  the  parish  would  be  an 
extinction  of  the  Church  ;  and  it  is  competent  to  the  members  of  the  parish  to  insti- 
tute a  new  Church,  or  to  engraft  one  upon  the  old  stock,  if  any  of  it  should  re- 
main, and  this  new  Church  would  succeed  to  all  the  rights  of  the  old,  in  relation  to 
the  parish.  This  is  not  only  reasonable,  but  it  is  conformable  to  the  usages  of  the 
country  ;  for  although  many  instances  may  have  occurred  of  the  removal  of  Church 
members  from  one  Church,  or  one  place  of  worship  to  another,  and  no  doubt  a  re- 
moval of  a  majority  of  the  members  has  sometimes  occurred,  we  do  not  hear  of  any 
Church  ceasing  to  exist,  while  there  were  members  enough  left  to  do  Church  ser- 
vice. No  particular  number  is  necessary  to  constitute  a  Church,  nor  is  there  any 
established  quorum,  which  would  have  a  right  to  manage  the  concerns  of  the  body. 
According  to  the  Cambridge  platform,  chap.  3,  <J  4,  the  number  is  to  be  no  larger 
than  can  conveniently  meet  together  in  one  place,  nor  ordinarily  fewer  than  may 
conveniently  carry  on  Church  work.  It  would  seem  to  follow  from  the  very  struc- 
ture of  such  a  body  as  this,  which  is  a  mere  voluntary  association,  that  a  diminution 
of  its  numbers  will  not  affect  its  identity.  A  Church  may  exist,  in  an  ecclesiastical 
sense,  without  any  officers,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  platform  ;  and  without  doubt,  in 
the  same  sense,  a  Church  may  be  composed  only  of  femmes-cmert  and  minors,  who 
have  no  civil  capacity.  The  only  circumstance,  therefore,  which  gives  a  Church  any 
legal  character,  is  its  connexion  with  some  regularly  constituted  society  ;  and  those 
who  withdraw  from  the  society  cease  to  be  members  of  that  particular  Church,  and 
the  remaining  members  continue  to  be  the  identical  Church.  This  is  analogous  to 
the  separation  of  towns  and  parishes — the  effect  of  which,  by  law,  is  to  leave  the 
original  body  politic  entire,  with  its  powers  and  privileges  undiminished,  however 
large  may  be  the  proportion  which  secedes.  And  so  it  is  of  all  voluntary  societies, 
having  funds  to  be  disposed  of  to  charitable  uses,  in  any  particular  place.  A  re- 
fusal of  a  majority  of  the  members  to  act,  would  devolve  all  power  over  the  subject 
upon  those  who  might  choose  to  persevere." 

This  shows  that  in  all  these  cases  where  there  is  a  separation,  if  the  old  Church 
remains,  even  if  the  majority  go  away,  it  still  continues  the  old  Church,  and,  as  you 
find  it  decided  in  that  case,  retain  all  the  rights  and  all  the  property  of  the  Church. 
A  number  of  other  cases  might  be  cited  from  the  Massachusetts  Reports,  but  I  ap- 
prehend it  would  be  unnecessary,  and  that  the  doctrine  is  firmly  settled  without 
dispute.  In  the  case  in  9  Barr's  Pennsylvania  Reports,  part  321,  you  will  find  the 
same  doctrine  laid  down,  that  the  Church  property  belongs  to  those  who  adhere  to 
the  ecclesiastical  government,  though  they  are  in  the  minority.  Those  who  depart 
from  the  government  of  the  Church  are  not  to  take  the  funds  along  with  them. 
It  is  perfectly  immaterial  whether  it  is  done  by  agreement  or  without  agreement.  If 
they  leave  the  Church  by  consent  they  leave  the  property  behind.  It  is  very  common 
in  the  case  of  corporations,  to  pass  acts  to  separate  a  portion  of  a  town,  or  a  portion 
of  a  corporation.  This  is  all  done  legitimately,  just  as  strong  as  if  there  was  a  for- 
mal agreement ;  but  the  new  town,  the  new  parish,  the  new  Church,  does  not  take  any 
portion  of  the  property  with  them.  They  leave  that  behind,  and  in  all  cases  where 
there  is  a  separation  from  the  government,  or  departure  from  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  they  also  leave  the  property  behind  with  the  Church  that  remains,  and  thev 


305 

cannot  call  for  a  division  of  property.  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the 
case  of  the  Attorney-General  vs.  Pearson,  in  3  Merivale,  beginning  at  p.  367.  It 
is  a  very  long  case,  and  runs  through  a  considerable  portion  of  the  book. 

"  In  this  case  the  defendants  set  up  a  plea  that  they  were  a  majority  of  the  con- 
gregation, and  that  they  had  united  in  the  choice  of  another  parson  who  was  a  Uni- 
tarian. They  had  for  many  years  been  Trinitarians.  In  1813,  they  made  choice  of 
a  Unitarian  clergyman,  Steward,  who  afterwards,  in  1816,  became  a  Trinitarian 
clergyman.  In  consequence  of  this  change  an  information  was  filed  by  the  attorney- 
general.  The  chancellor  decided  that  it  being  a  trust  for  religious  purposes,  a 
court  in  equity  would  take  complete  jurisdiction — that  in  the  formation  and  endow- 
ment of  a  chapel  for  religious  worship,  in  which  the  kind  was  not  mentioned,  the 
Court  would  for  explanation  resort  to  usage — that  it  was  not  in  the  power  of  indivi- 
duals to  change  the  purposes  of  such  an  institution,  if  only  established  for  Trinitarian 
purposes  it  could  not  be  converted  to  purposes  anti-Trinitarian — and  that  the  Court 
had  nothing  to  do  with  religious  doctrines,  except  to  ascertain  the  purposes  of  the 
trust,  and  the  Court  is  bound  to  determine  that  question." 

Here  the  original  purposes  of  the  trust  were  inquired  into,  if  it  were  necessary  to 
inquire  into  religious  doctrines  in  order  to  ascertain  them,  and  that  party  who  seceded 
from  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  had  no  right  to  claim  any  portion  of  the  funds. 
You  will  find  the  same  doctrine  in  2  Bligh's  Reports,  529,  further  in  2  Jacobs  and 
Walker,  427,  and  in  the  case  of  Field  vs.  Field,  9  Wendell,  394,  in  the  Supreme 
Court  of  this  State,  where  there  was  a  separation.  That  portion,  though  a  minority, 
who  adhered  to  the  course  of  discipline  and  mode  of  proceeding  marked  out  by  the 
discipline  and  government  of  the  Church,  were  entitled  to  the  property.  I  will 
refer  to  the  case  of  Den  vs.  Bolston,  7  Halstead's  Reports,  206.  This  was  the  case 
of  a  Dutch  Reformed  CKurch.  Some  persons  set  up  a  new  classis — they  have,  in 
that  Church,  an  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  called  the  classis — and  called  themselves 
the  True  Dutch  Reformed  Church.  In  this  particular  case  the  congregation  divided* 
and  the  question  arose  as  to  which  party  was  entitled  to  the  property.  It  was  de- 
cided that  those  who  had  set  up  the  new  classis  had  ceased  to  be  members  of  the 
Dutch  Reformed  Church,  and  could  not  carry  the  property  away  with  them  or  call 
for  a  division  of  it.  That  is  a  case  precisely  in  point.  There  was  a  case  in  which  a 
portion  of  the  Church,  and  I  think  it  was  a  majority,  undertook  to  form  a  new  classis, 
and  they  took  a  new  name,  and  called  themselves  "  The  True  Dutch  Reformed 
Church,"  as  in  this  case  under  consideration  they  here  call  themselves  The  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  South.  They  claimed  they  had  a  right  to  a  division  of  the 
funds,  but  the  Court  decided  that,  if  they  chose  to  leave  the  Church,  to  leave  that 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  which  was  there  formed  and  in  existence,  to  form  a  new 
institution  and  take  a  new  name,  they  could  not  claim  any  portion  of  the  property. 
The  old  Church  exists  under  a  certain  organism.  It  exists  as  a  unit,  and  the  body 
cannot  be  thus  divided,  so  as  to  carry  the  property  with  them.  And  you  will  find 
the  same  doctrine  in  the  case  of  the  State  vs.  Crowell,  4  Halstead's  Reports,  390. 
This  was  the  case  of  a  Presbyterian  Church  at  Perth  Amboy.  They  had  a  clergy- 
man who  was  silenced  in  their  Church  by  the  Church  judicatories  ;  but  a  large  major- 
ity of  the  congregation,  as  many  as  three-fourths,  remained  attached  to  him.  The 
Presbytery  sent  supplies.  The  majority  refused  to  pay  up  the  old  subscription  list, 
and  set  up  a  new  subscription  for  the  support  of  another  minister,  the  one  who  had 
been  silenced  by  the  Church  judicatories.  Their  language  to  the  minority  was,  "  If 
you  want  supplies  you  must  pay  for  them."  Here  was  a  case,  where,  if  this  doctrine 
of  separating  and  dividing  would  entitle  the  separatists  to  a  portion  of  the  property, 
they  would  have  been  entitled.  They  were  a  large  majority.  They  insisted  upon 
adhering  to  the  minister  settled  there.  He  had  been  silenced  by  the  higher  Church 

20 


judicatories,  and  the  minority,  who  were  disposed  to  adhere  to  the  Church  judicato- 
ries,  elected  a  new  pastor.  The  others  refused  to  join  with  them,  and  claimed  the 
property.  The  question  was.  which  was  entitled  to  it,  or  whether  they  were  entitled 
to  make  a  division  of  the  property,  as  well  as  to  secede  from  the  Church.  The  Court 
decided  that  it  belonged  to  that  party  which  was  identified  with  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  and  adhered  to  its  judicatories. 

I  will  not  trouble  the  Court  with  the  citation  of  any  further  authorities  upon 
this  point.  There  was  one  case,  however,  which  was  cited  by  the  counsel  on  the 
other  side,  to  which  I  will  refer  the  Court — the  case  in  2  Russell's  Reports,  114, — 
where  the  pew-holders  claimed  the  right  to  vote  on  the  ground  of  their  having  a  pro- 
perty, and  interest,  and  consideration  in  the  Church  ;  but  according  to  the  established 
discipline  and  government  of  the  Church  they  were  not  entitled  to  vote,  and  it  was 
decided,  according  to  the  discipline  and  government,  that  they  had  no  right,  and 
that  they  could  claim  no  right  to  the  property  consequent  upon  a  division  grounded 
upon  the  refusal  to  allow  them  to  vote. 

I  submit  then  to  your  Honours,  that  there  are  two  radical  errors  in  the  claim  upon 
the  other  side,  and  two  radical  errors  committed  by  the  Court,  in  relation  to  two 
facts,  when  it  undertook  to  carry  out  the  claim  in  the  Maysville  case.  They  are — 
First,  that  in  this  case  there  was  no  agreement  to  divide  the  Church  into  two  distinct 
parts  fairly  made  ;  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  agreement  was  that  the  Church  should 
remain,  and  this  particular  body,  constituting  the  minority  of  the  Church,  should  be 
at  liberty  to  withdraw  and  separate.  That  was  the  agreement.  And  in  the  next 
place,  there  was  no  agreement  to  divide  the  fund,  and  no  right  to  have  the  fund 
divided.  In  this  case  the  agreement  required,  so  far  as  it  goes  to  divide  the  fund, 
the  concurrence  of  the  annual  conferences,  which  has  never  been  obtained.  If  they 
rest  on  the  agreement,  they  must  take  it  as  it  is.  Unless  there  has  been  that  con- 
currence they  have  no  right  to  set  up  the  claim. 

I  now  come  to  consider  the  next  ground  of  the  claim  on  the  other  side,  and  that  is, 
that  in  the  absence  of  any  agreement,  and  upon  the  supposition  that  there  was  no 
agreement,  there  has  been  such  misconduct  on  the  part  of  the  defendants  and  those 
connected  with  them,  constituting,  as  we  say,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as 
warranted  them  in  separating,  and  that  they  are  entitled  in  consequence  of  that  mis- 
conduct to  recover  a  proportion  of  this  property.  As  I  have  before  observed,  it  is 
not  pretended  in  this  case  that  there  has  been  any  departure  on  the  part  of  the  de- 
fendants from  the  true  doctrines  of  the  Church.  That  cannot  be  pretended.  The 
complaint  is,  misconduct  in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  in  its  go- 
vernment or  in  its  discipline  ;  and  the  misconduct  all  has  reference  to  that  most  un- 
fortunate subject  in  this  country,  which  seems  to  create  trouble  wherever  it  appears, 
in  State  and  in  Church — the  subject  of  slavery.  I  apprehend  upon  this  subject,  the 
defendants,  and  their  adherents,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  have  carried 
out  to  the  very  letter  the  entire  doctrines  and  regulations  of  the  Church  upon  that 
important  point,  and  that  there  is  really  no  ground  of  complaint,  on  the  part  of 
the  plaintiffs,  against  them  for  the  manner  in  which  they  have  deported  themselves 
upon  that  delicate  subject.  There  can  be  no  pretence  for  alleging  that  this  Methodist 
Society  are  abolitionists —I  do  not  use  that  term  in  any  disparaging  sense  ;  I  advert 
to  it  simply  to  designate  a  certain  class  of  doctrines  and  positions  which  have  been 
maintained.  It  cannot  be  pretended  that  this  Church,  as  a  Church,  have  adopted 
any  of  these  doctrines.  They  have  not  undertaken  to  interfere  with  slavery,  to 
abolish  it.  They  have  simply  carried  out  those  principles  and  views  which  have  always 
existed  in  the  Church,  in  which  the  brethren  of  the  South  have  always  concurred — 
views  of  a  practical  character,  and  which  were  designed  to  subserve  the  interests  of 

20* 


307 

the  Church,  both  North  and  South.  They  have  not  gone  one  jot  or  tittle  further 
than  the  ancient,  well  settled,  and  established  principles  and  usages  of  the  Church 
would  warrant.  I  do  not  mean  to  trouble  the  Court  with  going  over  the  evi- 
dence upon  this  subject,  as  to  what  are  the  opinions  and  doctrines  of  this  Church ; 
that  has  been  pretty  fully  developed  already.  I  will  barely  make  one  or  two  remarks 
on  that  subject. 

In  the  early  history  of  this  Church,  in  this  country,  there  certainly  was,  under  the 
auspices  of  the  foreign  members  who  took  the  control  of  the  government  of  it,  a  dis- 
position at  once  to  abolish  slavery,  and  they  introduced  such  a  provision  as,  if  carried 
out,  would  lead  to  that  result.  But  your  Honours  are  aware  that  it  was  at  once 
abandoned,  and  a  rule  of  practical  convenience  was  substituted  in  its  place.  -They 
gave  up  all  such  pretensions.  They  adopted  what  ought  to  have  been,  and  what 
was  properly  the  true  rule  upon  that  subject — to  let  it  alone,  to  leave  the  domestic 
institutions  of  the  different  States  to  the  States  themselves,  and  not  to  interfere  with 
it  any  further  than  was  necessary  and  convenient  for  the  wholesome  and  conservative 
administration  of  the  affairs  of  this  Church.  I  might  refer  you  to  the  address  which 
was  delivered  to  the  British  Conference  upon  this  subject,  which  has  already  been 
read  to  the  Court,  which  shows  what  their  principles  are.  «Their  doctrines  in  1804, 
settled  down  to  this  principle :  individuals  were  at  liberty  to  hold  slaves  or  not,  as 
they  thought  proper.  Officers  of  the  Church  were  required  to  free  their  slaves  when 
it  was  practicable — when  it  was  allowed  in  the  States  in  which  they  lived.  But  as 
to  the  bishops,  the  doctrine  never  extended  to  them.  It  has  always  been  maintained 
and  held,  that  bishops  should  not  be  the  holders  of  slaves,  and  we  have  this  most 
important  fact  in  the  history  of  this  Church,  that  until  the  time  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
there  never  had  been  a  slaveholding  bishop  in  it.  Prior  to  this  time,  at  least  two- 
thirds  of  the  bishops  had  been  taken  from  the  Southern  conferences,  and  all  of  them, 
without  any  apparent  difficulty  or  dispute  among  them,  had  been  men  who  neither 
owned  nor  held  slaves.  Bishop  Andrew  did  no't  own  or  hold  a  slave  at  the  time  he 
was  created  a  bishop.  This  is  a  most  important  circumstance  upon  this  point. 
Usage,  in  the  absence  of  any  express  provision,  goes  far.  In  the  absence  of  express 
provision,  I  may  say,  it  is  conclusive  upon  what  are  the  true  principles  of  the  Church. 
Ancient  usage  is  the  common  law  of  the  Church,  and  must  govern  it.  In  one  of 
those  cases  to  which  I  have  called  your  attention,  you  will  observe  that  ancient 
usage  was  resorted  to,  to  ascertain  what  were  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  and  in 
order  to  ascertain  the  doctrines,  with  a  view  to  settle  the  question  of  property.  Now, 
when  yon  find  that  in  this  Church  one  portion,  and  a  very  large  portion  of  this  ter- 
ritory, is  slaveholding ;  when  you  find,  at  the  time  of  the  creation  of  this  Church, 
and  for  a  long  period,  every  State  held  slaves,  the  fact  that  no  one  of  the  bishops  has 
ever  been  a  slaveholder  until  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  that  he  was  not  a 
slaveholder  at  the  time  of  his  appointment,  I  think  it  may  be  stated  as  conclusive 
evidence,  that  there  has  been  a  doctrine  in  this  Church,  well  settled  and  constantly 
acted  upon,  to  elect  to  that  important  office  no  person  who  was  a  holder  of  slaves. 
Now,  you  observe  that  there  is  nothing  in  alf  this  proceeding  on  the  part  of  these 
Methodists,  in  their  government  and  discipline,  which  is  at  all  hostile  to  the  existence 
of  this  domestic  institution  in  the  South.  They,  of  course,  believe  it  would  be  bet- 
ter not  to  have  slaves  if  it  could  be  avoided,  but  they  adopt  this  belief  upon  the  same 
principle  that  they  would  decide  upon  any  abstract  question ;  for  instance,  that  it 
would  be  better  that  the  serfs  of  Russia  should  not  exist,  or  that  the  labouring,  the 
manufacturing  population  of  England  should  be  in  a  much  better  condition  than  they 
are,  which  is  really  a  great  deal  worse  than  the  condition  of  our  Southern  slaves. 
They  would  hold  all  this  in  the  abstract,  and  they  consider  the  condition  of  the  Rus- 


308 

sian  serfs,  and  of  the  manufacturing  and  labouring  population  of  England,  as  an  evil 
in  the  abstract,  as  they  consider  slavery  an  evil,  and  they  would  endeavour,  as  far 
as  practicable,  to  improve  both ;  but  they  would  not  be  so  Quixotic  as  to  undertake 
to  abolish  the  institutions  of  Russia,  or  the  institutions  of  England,  when  doubtless 
such  an  abolition  would  cause  more  evil  than  good,  though  it  might  be  better  if  these 
portions  of  the  human  race  were  in  a  better  condition.  And  for  the  same  reason 
they  would  not  undertake  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  United  States.  In  that  particular 
they  leave  each  State  to  work  out  for  itself.  But  in  consequence  of  the  opinions  of 
many  persons  who  are  members  of  the  Church,  who  are  opposed  to  slavery,  and  in 
order  to  make  the  officers  of  their  Church  useful,  and  dispense  the  benefits  of  reli- 
gion through  the  whole  territory  of  the  Church,  they  have  gone  thus  far.  They  have 
said  that  the  travelling  preachers  and  ministers  of  the  Church  shall  emancipate  their 
slaves  where  it  is  practicable,  and  that  bishops  shall  not  be  elected  when  they  are 
holders  of  slaves. 

MB.  RKVKEDY  JOHNSON, — There  is  no  positive  rule  on  the  subject. 

MR.  WOOD, — I  stated,  as  to  the  bishops,  there  was  no  express  rule  about  it ;  but 
I  have  referred  to  the  anpient  and  established  usage  as  settling  the  common  law  in 
the  Church,  precisely  as  in  the  case  already  referred  to,  where  the  common  and 
established  usage  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  settled,  in  the  absence  of 
any  express  provision,  that  that  was  a  Trinitarian  Church. 

Now,  in  this  case,  on  what  principle  did  they  act  1  Why,  it  is  no  objection  to  a 
man  in  the  slaveholding  States  that  he  does  not  own  slaves.  If  a  person  not  owning 
slaves,  living  in  the  slaveholding  States,  should  be  made  a  bishop,  he  is  not  the  less 
acceptionable  to  the  community  because  he  does  not  own  slaves ;  but  when  he 
comes  to  the  free  States,  where  many  persons  believe  that  slavery  ought  not  to 
exist,  and  that  he  ought  to  manumit  his  slaves,  it  would  destroy  his  usefulness,  or 
greatly  mar  it,  if  he  held  slaves.  They  have  simply  adopted  it  as  a  conservative 
rule  of  action.  I  must  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  some  passages  in  the  Ad- 
dress which  they  made  to  the  foreign  conferences.  In  the  address  of  the  British 
Conference  to  the  General  Conference,  page  64  of  the  First  of  the  Proofs,  is  the 
following : — 

"  But  while  we  freely  indulge  in  sentiments  such  as  these,  we  cannot  forget  that 
on  one  subject  especially — the  subject  of  American  slavery — you,  our  beloved 
brethren,  are  placed  in  circumstances  of  painful  trial  and  perplexity.  We  enter, 
with  brotherly  sympathy,  into  the  peculiar  situation  which  you  are  now  called  to  oc- 
cupy. But  on  this  question,  we  beg  to  refer  you  to  what  occurs  in  our  address  to 
you  from  the  Conference  in  1836,  a  proper  copy  of  which  will  be  handed  to  you  by 
our  representative  ;  as  also  to  the  contents  of  the  preceding  letter  of  1835.  To  the 
principles  which  we  have  affectionately  but  honestly  declared  in  these  two  documents 
we  still  adhere,  with  a  full  conviction  of  their  Christian  truth  and  justice. 

"  The  time  which  has  elapsed,  and  the  events  which  have  taken  place,  eince  the 
preparation  of  the  above-mentioned  papers,  serve  only  to  confirm  us  yet  more  in  our 
views  of  the  moral  evil  of  slavery.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  advocate  violent  and  ill-con- 
sidered measures.  We  are,  however,  strongly  and  unequivocally  of  the  opinion  that 
it  is,  at  this  time,  the  paramount  Christian  duty  of  the  ministers  of  our  most  merciful 
Lord  in  your  country,  to  maintain  the  principle  of  opposition  to  slavery  with  earnest 
zeal,  and  unflinching  firmness.  May  we  not  also  be  allowed,  with  the  heart-felt  soli- 
citude of  fraternal  love,  to  entreat  that  you  will  not  omit  or  qualify  the  noble  testi- 
mony which  we  have  extracted,  in  a  note  to  our  address,  from  your  Book  of  Disci- 
pline, but  that  you  will  continue  to  insert  it  there  in  its  primitive  and  unimpaired 
integrity." 

I  will  read  one  or  two  passages  from  the  answer  to  this  : — 


OU«7 

"  Of  these  United  States,  (to  the  government  and  laws  of  which,  '  according  to  the 
division  of  power  made  to  them  by  the  Constitution  of  the  Union,  and  the  constitu- 
tions  of  the  several  States,'  we  owe,  and  delight  to  render,  a  sincere  and  patriotic 
loyalty,)"  [no  "  higher  law"  here  set  up,]  "there  are  several  which  do  not  allow  of 
slavery.  There  are  others  in  which  it  is  allowed,  and  there  are  slaves  ;  but  the  ten- 
dency of  the  laws,  and  the  minds  of  a  majority  of  the  people,  are  in  favour  of  eman- 
cipation. But  there  are  others  in  which  slavery  exists  so  universally,  and  is  so  closely 
interwoven  with  their  civil  institutions,  that  both  do  the  laws  disallow  of  emancipa- 
tion, and  the  great  body  of  the  people  (the  source  of  laws  with  us)  hold  it  to  be  trea- 
sonable to  set  forth  anything,  by  word  or  deed,  tending  that  way.  Each  one  of  all 
these  States  is  independent  of  the  rest,  and  sovereign  with  respect  to  its  internal 
government,  (as  much  so  as  if  there  existed  no  confederation  among  them  for  ends 
of  common  interest,)  and  therefore  it  is  impossible  to  frame  a  rule  on  slavery  proper 
for  our  people  in  all  the  States  alike.  But  our  Church  is  extended  through  all  the 
States,  and  as  it  would  be  wrong  and  unscriptural  to  enact  a  rule  of  discipline  in  op- 
position to  the  constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  on  this  subject,  so  also  would  it  not 
be  equitable  or  Scriptural  to  confound  the  positions  of  our  ministers  and  people  (so 
different  as  they  are  in  different  States)  with  respect  to  the  moral  question  which 
slavery  involves. 

"  Under  the  administration  of  the  venerated  Dr.  Coke,  this  plain  distinction  was 
once  overlooked,  and  it  was  attempted  to  urge  emancipation  in  all  the  States ;  but 
this  attempt  proved  almost  ruinous,  and  was  soon  abandoned  by  the  doctor  himself. 
While,  therefore,  the  Church  has  encouraged  emancipation  in  those  States  where  the 
laws  permit  it,  and  allowed  the  freed  man  to  enjoy  freedom,  we  have  refrained,  for 
conscience'  sake,  from  all  intermeddling  with  the  subject  in  those  other  States  where 
the  laws  make  it  criminal.  And  such  a  course  we  think  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  indicated  by  St.  Paul's  inspired  instruction  to  servants,  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  chap,  vii,  ver.  20,  21.  For  if  servants  were  not  to  care  for  their  servi- 
tude when  they  might  not  be  free,  though  if  they  might  be  free  they  should  use  it 
rather,  so  neither  should  masters  be  condemned  for  not  setting  them  free  when  they 
might  not  do  so,  though  if  they  might,  they  should  do  so  rather.  The  question  of 
the  evil  of  slavery,  abstractedly  considered,  you  will  readily  perceive,  brethren,  is  a 
very  different  matter  from  a  principle  or  rule  of  Church  discipline  to  be  executed  con- 
trary to,  and  in  defiance  of,  the  law  of  the  land.  Methodism  has  always  been  (ex- 
cept perhaps  in  the  single  instance  above)  eminently  loyal  and  promotive  of  good 
order ;  and  so  we  desire  it  may  ever  continue  to  be,  both  in  Europe  and  America. 
With  this  sentiment  we  conclude  the  subject,  adding  only  the  corroborating  language 
of  your  noble  Missionary  Society,  by  the  revered  and  lamented  Watson,  in  their 
instructions  to  missionaries,"  &c. 

Now,  I  apprehend  that  no  man,  however  sensitive  he  may  be  upon  this  subject  of 
slavery,  can  see  anything  in  the  conduct  of  this  Church  with  which  to  find  fault. 
They  are  disposed  to  be  eminently  loyal,  to  submit  to  the  laws  and  government  of 
the  country,  to  leave  this  domestic  institution  to  those  who  are  concerned  with  it,  to 
let  them  act  in  their  own  way.  If  there  is  any  evil  in  slavery,  they  must  bear  it ;  if 
there  is  any  danger  in  any  sudden  abolition  of  it,  they  must  be  subjected  to  that  dan- 
ger ;  and  therefore  they  ought  to  be  allowed  to  judge  for  themselves.  That  is  the 
doctrine  of  Methodism.  Some  of  these  early  bishops,  it  is  true,  who  were  not  fami- 
liar with  our  institutions,  coming  from  abroad,  undertook  to  go  further,  and  meddle 
with  this  subject,  and  turn  Quixotes  in  philanthropy,  as  there  were  formerly  Quix- 
otes in  knight-errantry.  But  they  abandoned  that  very  soon,  and  took  a  broad  and 
practical  ground.  They  allowed  slavery  to  exist ;  they  carried  out  the  old  primitive 
doctrine  of  the  apostle,  who,  when  he  converted  a  runaway  slave,  advised  him  to 
go  back  to  his  master,  and  advised  the  master  to  treat  him  well.  They  are  aware, 
and  they  have  been  aware,  that  if  they  promote  a  sound  body  of  Christian  morality, 
and  leave  that  to  work  itself,  it  will  more  effectually  modify  and  ameliorate  anything 
that  may  be  harsh  or  severe  in  political  or  domestic  institutions,  than  by  attempt- 
ing directly  to  meddle  with  them ;  and  therefore  they  give  to  Caesar  what  be- 


ongs  to  Caesar.  I  take  that  to  be  the  old  sound  doctrine  of  the  Methodist  Church, 
and  that  it  has  always  been  carried  out.  And  the  Southern  branch  of  this  Church 
always  acted  with  them,  until  they  had  become  (and  I  do  not  blame  them ;  it  is  not 
for  me  to  blame  any  of  the  parties  in  this  case)  extremely  sensitive  upon  that  subject 
from  the  conduct  of  certain  individuals  in  other  portions  of  the  United  States,  who 
have  undertaken  to  go  beyond  this  sound  doctrine,  and  interfere  with  their  domestic 
institutions,  beyond  what  reason,  good  sense, or  Christianity  would  call  for  or  admit. 

Now,  what  is  the  reason  why  the  officers  of  their  Church,  their  travelling  ministers 
for  instance,  are  required  to  emancipate  their  slaves  where  it  can  be  done  1  and  what 
is  the  reason  why  a  bishop  in  no  case  is  allowed  to  hold  slaves  1  Not  that  they  want 
to  interfere  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  South.  All  they  want  is  to  render 
their  officers  acceptable,  and  acceptable  to  all  men  ;  to  be  all  things  to  all  men,  in 
the  sense  in  which  St.  Paul  used  that  phrase  ;  to  be  acceptable,  in  order  to  do  good. 
That  was  their  object ;  and  they  believed,  and  they  now  believe,  that  to  carry  out 
the  great  purposes  of  their  Church,  it  is  all-important  that  those  rules  should  be  ob- 
served, without  attempting  to  meddle  with  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  South. 
They  were  willing  to  appoint  Southern  ministers  to  the  bishopric,  as  they  always 
have  done,  but  just  select  those  who  do  not  own  slaves.  Among  these  Christians 
of  primitive  habits,  where  there  are  ministers  in  abundance  who  do  not  own  property 
of  that  kind,  and  who  own  very  little  property  of  any  kind,  where  the  land  they  cul- 
tivate is  Immanuel's  land,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  selecting  proper  persons  for  that 
office,  who  are  free  from  this  objection. 

One  great  principle — it  is  a  radical  principle,  and  was  set  forth  in  the  Address  of 
the  bishops,  which  was  signed  by  the  two  Southern  bishops,  Soule  and  Andrew — is 
the  doctrine  of  the  itinerancy  of  the  bishops.  It  is  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  essen- 
tial doctrines  of  that  Church.  It  will  not  do  to  establish  local  bishops.  It  will  not 
do,  they  say,  to  make  any  exceptions.  They  have  adopted  in  this  case  the  primitive 
rule  of  the  apostles — to  travel,  not  to  abide  in  one  place  ;  to  go  abroad,  to  scatter  the 
seeds  of  the  Gospel  through  every  land.  Their  bishops  are  to  travel,  each  and  all 
of  them,  over  every  portion  of  the  dominions  and  jurisdiction  of  their  Church.  But 
when  they  go  into  that  part  of  the  country  where  slavery  happens  to  be  in  bad  odour, 
and  where  they  are  to  make  their  efforts  not  only  to  confirm  those  already  in  the 
faith,  but  convert  others  to  it,  any  one  must  see  that  they  become  inefficient  if  they 
are  the  owners  of  slaves  ;  and  therefore  it  becomes  necessary  to  do  one  of  two  things  : 
either  require  that  the  bishops  elected  shall  not  be  slaveholders,  or  dispense  with  the 
rule  that  they  shall  be  itinerant,  and  make  them  local.  The  latter  they  could  not  do 
without  abandoning  Methodism,  because  the  great  founder  of  Methodism  laid  that 
down  as  an  essential  rule.  He  adopted  the  episcopacy  of  the  English  Church,  but 
it  was  not  a  mere  local,  lazy  episcopacy,  such  as  he  found  there.  He  wanted  an  ac- 
tive travelling  episcopacy,  and  to  keep  them  active  and  efficient  he  determined  to 
introduce  this  as  an  indispensable  rule  of  the  Church,  that  they  should  be  itinerant ; 
and  they  have  continued  to  be  so.  Here  is  the  great  origin  of  all  their  doctrines  in 
regard  to  slavery — doctrines  in  which  the  Southern  branch,  as  well  as  the  Northern, 
unti.  a.  comparatively  recent  period,  all  concurred,  and  about  which  there  appears  to 
have  been  before  this  not  the  slightest  difficulty.  And  what  is  this  recent  difficulty  1 
How  did  it  arise  1  We  first  hear  of  it  in  the  General  Conferences  of  1840  and  1844. 
It  appears  that  among  individual  members  of  this  Church  in  the  Northern  and  Middle 
States,  there  were  some  abolitionists.  And  when  we  consider  the  state  of  society 
in  this  section  of  the  country  for  a  number  of  years  past,  the  vast  influence  which  the 
foreign  abolitionists  have  had  upon  our  country,  and  the  attempts  which  were  made 
by  the  foreign  bishops  to  introduce  these  doctrines  here,  meddling  with  institutions 


311 

with  which  they  had  no  concern  ;  meddling  with  our  servants  who  are  in  a  state  of 
slavery,  but  in  a  much  better  condition  than  their  own  at  home,  many  of  whom  are  in  a 
condition  at  present  which  a  British  minister  lately  described  as  formerly  applicable 
to  a  certain  portion  of  their  society  in  early  periods  of  their  history — without  panta- 
loons,— when,  I  say,  we  look  at  this,  and  the  constant  efforts  which  they  had  made, 
is  it  surprising  that  there  should  be  individual  members  of  this  Church  who  should 
adopt  these  doctrines,  and  who  should  undertake  to  flood  the  conferences  with  their 
petitions  and  memorials,  as  the  same  class  of  people  undertook  to  flood  the  congress 
of  the  United  States  1  And  they  actually  did  for  a  number  of  years  overwhelm  it  with 
these  worse  than  useless  petitions,  backed  by  an  old  gentleman  in  congress  of  great  dis- 
tinction, but  whom  I  have  always  considered  as  acting  very  erroneously  on  that  sub- 
ject. If,  when  these  petitions  came  in,  the  conferences  had  adopted  and  acted  upon 
them,  there  would  have  been  some  ground  of  complaint.  But  how  was  it  1  Did 
they  adopt  them?  We  have  a  resolution  passed  by  the  Church  in  1840  upon  this 
subject,  which,  I  apprehend,  ought,  with  all  prudent  men  who  are  disposed  to  be 
guided  by  their  reason  instead  of  their  passions,  to  have  calmed  and  quieted  this 
Church.  I  read  from  the  First  of  the  Proofs,  page  74,  a  resolution  which  was  passed 
upon  a  report  of  the  committee  upon  these  petitions : — 

"  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  General  Confer- 
ence assembled,  That  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  general  rule  of  the 
Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of 
slave  property,  in  States  or  territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation 
and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the 
election  or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot  therefore  be  considered  as  operating 
any  forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination." 

This  was  nothing  more  than  the  adoption  of  the  ancient  and  established  usages  of 
this  Church,  in  defiance  of  all  these  petitions  which  were  thus  sent  in,  carrying  them 
out,  and  showing,  on  the  part  of  this  Church,  a  determination  to  carry  out  their 
ancient  and  established  doctrine  and  rules.  Now,  I  submit,  that  that  is  no  foundation 
for  a  secession  from  this  Church.  The  Southern  brethren  cannot  complain  of  any 
misconduct  on  the  part  of  this  Church  as  a  Church.  On  the  contrary,  their  conduct 
was  exemplary,  and  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  established  usages  and  practices 
of  the  Church. 

As  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Harding,  who  was  one  of  the  travelling  ministers  in  the  Bal- 
timore Conference,  which  the  counsel  on  the  other  side,  in  the  indulgence  of  a  little 
imagination,  calls  the  "  Breakwater  Conference,"  it  seems  that  in  that  conference 
there  is  slaveholding  territory  and  free  territory.  Mr.  Harding  had  not  purchased 
slaves,  but  had  acquired  them  by  marriage.  Well,  two  questions  arose  hi  that  case : 
one  was,  whether  slaves  could  be  emancipated  in  that  State ;  and  the  other  was, 
whether  he  was  to  be  considered  as  voluntarily  acquiring  this  kind  of  property  when 
he  obtained  it  by  marriage!  I  admit  that  was  a  pretty  nice  question,  because, 
although  the  Methodists  adopt  the  American  doctrine  of  free  will,  yet  in  the  case  of 
matrimony,  perhaps,  there  is  not  always  perfect  free  will.  However,  it  was  a  very 
delicate  and  nice  question  to  determine  whether  it  came  within  the  rule  of  voluntary 
acquisition.  Another  question  arose,  and  that  was,  whether  in  that  State  manumis- 
sion was  allowable  1  It  seems  that  some  gentlemen  gave  opinions  that  it  was,  and 
others  thought  differently.  The  conference  had  to  pass  on  these  delicate  subjects. 
It  was  a  question  which  could  not  often  arise.  It  was  a  mere  isolated  case,  and  one 
which  they  had  to  pass  upon  with  the  best  lights  they  could  get,  and  the  annual  con- 
ference decided  that  he  ought  to  be  suspended  from  the  ministry  until  he  emancipated 

o 


312 

the  slaves,  or  showed  cause  for  not  doing  it.  If  you  will  read  the  argument,  you 
will  see  that  he  had  not  made  any  effort  to  do  it ;  perhaps  his  wife  would  have  joined 
him  in  emancipating  them.  He  appeared  to  be  active  in  retaining  the  property. 
Therefore,  under  all  the  circumstances,  as  in  this  conference  there  was  jurisdiction 
over  free  territory  and  slave  territory,  and  ministers  who  held  slaves  would  not  be 
acceptable  in  the  free  part  of  it,  and  as  travelling  ministers  are  to  travel  over  the 
entire  territory  in  the  conference,  they  thought  best,  until  that  difficulty  should  be 
removed,  that  he  should  be  suspended  from  the  ministry.  The  General  Conference, 
on  an  appeal,  seeing  no  foundation  for  reversing,  confirmed  the  decision. 

Let  us  take  the  next  case  in  connexion  with  it,  that  of  Bishop  Andrew.  He,  it 
seems,  also  married  a  wife,  and  that  wife  had  slaves.  He  had  acquired  by  will  a 
slave  who  refused  to  be  free,  who  refused  to  go  to  Liberia.  So  far  from  making  any 
effort  to  emancipate,  or  showing  any  disposition  to  do  it,  he  had  executed  an  assign- 
ment in  trust  to  secure  the  slaves  thus  acquired  to  the  joint  benefit  of  himself  and  his 
wife.  That  case  came  up  before  the  Conference.  What  were  they  to  do  1  Here 
•was  a  bishop,  against  whom  there  was  no  objection  originally,  but  who  had  become 
unacceptable  to  a  considerable  portion  of  Methodists  in  some  parts  of  the  territory  ; 
and  according  to  a  radical  and  fundamental  doctrine  of  that  Church,  he  was  to  travel 
through  all  that  territory.  That  must  be  admitted  to  be  a  very  nice  question.  Sup- 
pose they  were  wrong  in  their  decision  upon  the  case — let  us  suppose,  upon  the  whole 
case,  which  would  bring  even  a  judicial  mind,  who  happened  to  be  a  member  of  that 
Church,  to  a  pause,  that  they  had  come  to  an  erroneous  decision,  and  had  committed 
an  error  in  this  one  particular  case,  is  that  to  break  up  the  Church  1  Does  that  war- 
rant a  secession  ]  Is  that  a  misconduct  which  would  entitle  them  to  be  treated  in  the 
light  of  seceders  1  I  apprehend  not. 

I  will  refer  the  Court,  on  this  subject,  to  the  case  of  Miller  vs.  Gable,  2  Denio's 
Reports,  492.  Judge  Gardiner  observes,  in  going  over  this  subject,  in  regard  to  doc- 
trines— and  it  will  throw  light  on  the  subject  of  the  government  and  discipline — that 
in  order  to  constitute  a  departure  from  the  trust,  with  regard  to  doctrines,  there  must 
be  a  settled  deviation  from  some  substantial  doctrine  of  the  Church.  You  will  find 
the  same  position  in  2  Bligh's  Reports,  529.  This  was  the  case  of  an  Associate 
Congregation  of  Perth. 

It  establishes  two  important  principles  : — 

Firstly.  "  Where  a  difference  of  doctrines  prevails,  the  Court  will  decide  in  favour 
of  the  party  which  adheres  to  the  ancient  doctrines  of  the  Church. 

Secondly.  "  That  when  there  is  a  difference  in  regard  to  government,  the  Court 
will  decide  in  favour  of  those  who  adhere  to  the  old  government.  But  the  question 
of  doctrine  furnishes  the  primary  rule — an  adherence  to  the  ancient  established 
doctrines  of  the  Church  is  indispensable  to  constitute  Church  membership." 

This  case  was  carried  up  to  the  Court  of  Appeals — the  Parliament  of  Great 
Britain — and  it  was  there  decided  that  there  had  been  a  deviation  in  some  respects 
from  their  doctrines,  but  hi  no  very  essential  point.  It  was  on  the  subject  of  the 
administration  of  an  oath. 

But  it  must  be  in  some  substantial,  essential  point,  where  there  is  a  departure,  in 
order  to  warrant  a  court  in  treating  them  as  seceders  from  the  Church.  If  there  had 
been  in  this  case  a  determination  to  depart  from  some  important  radical  portion  of 
the  Discipline,  which  is  considered  essential,  there  would  have  been  ground  for  a  seces- 
sion ;  but  to  say  that  in  this  Church,  because,in  two  particular  instances,  in  very  nice 
cases,  they  had  given  a  construction  which  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side  say  was 
not  correct,  but  where  it  is  manifest  they  decided  according  to  their  best  judgments 
—to  say  that  in  this  Church  a  decision  in  such  cases,  standing  out  of  any  direct  rule, 


313- 

and  where  a  rule  was  to  be  applied  without  any  precedents  to  guide  them,  was  a  mis- 
conduct which  would  warrant  a  dissolution  of  the  union  of  the  Church,  break  it  up, 
and  entitle  those  who  did  thus  dissolve  it,  and  break  it  up,  to  be  considered  as  the 
true  Church,  and  to  carry  property  along  with  them,  is,  I  apprehend,  going  too  far. 
I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  the  view  which  this  Church  takes  of  this 
subject  of  union  in  their  Discipline,  chap.  1,  sec.  18  : — 

"  Let  us  be  deeply  sensible  (from  what  we  have  known)  of  the  evil  of  a  division  in 
principle,  spirit,  or  practice,  and  the  dreadful  consequences  to  ourselves  and  others. 
If  we  are  united,  what  can  stand  before  us  1  If  we  divide,  we  shall  destroy  ourselves, 
the  work  of  God,  and  the  souls  of  our  people." 

They  here  inculcate  with  great  stress  the  importance  of  union  and  the  necessity  of 
enforcing  and  preserving  it.  The  principles  they  advance  are  important  and  highly 
conservative.  It  would  be  well  for  all  good  citizens  to  adopt  those  principles,  to  guide 
them  in  their  allegiance  and  their  duty  towards  the  government  of  the  country  under 
which  they  live,  and  from  which  they  have  received  all  that  they  are  and  all  that  they 
ought  to  be.  Deeply  imbued  with  those  principles,  while  anxious  to  assert  their 
rights,  they  would  be  equally  mindful  of  their  duties.  Then  follows  a  variety  of  re- 
gulations to  preserve  the  union  of  the  Church. 

Well,  when  we  find  a  rule  of  law  upon  this  subject,  that  in  order  to  constitute  a 
right  to  separate  or  secede  lawfully,  there  must  be  in  the  opposite  party  a  settled 
violation  of  or  departure  from  some  essential  and  important  rule  of  action  in  the  gov- 
ernment or  discipline,  of  course  the  same  law  will  apply  more  strongly  to  a  similar 
departure  in  a  matter  of  faith  and  doctrine,  because  it  is  more  important  in  an  eccle- 
siastical body  that  its  faith  should  be  observed  than  its  government  or  discipline. 
The  religious  faith  of  the  Church  is  the  great  object  in  view  in  establishing  the 
Church.  You  will  always  look  and  inquire  in  considering  who  are  the  adherents  to 
any  institution,  what  is  tke  object  of  that  body  1  for  what  is  it  created  1 — the  rules, 
government,  and  discipline,  are  merely  subordinate.  They  are  merely  instrumental 
in  carrying  out  the  great  purpose  which  is  here — the  promotion  and  propagation  of 
religious  faith.  But  a  departure  from  the  religious  faith  in  a  matter  of  very  little 
importance,  as  we  have  seen,  is  no  foundation  for  a  separation.  Can,  then,  a  mistake 
in  a  decision  in  a  doubtful,  difficult  case,  a  new  case,  one  which  does  not  come 
directly  under  any  fixed,  settled  principle,  but  to  which  principles  are  brought  to 
apply  inferentially  and  impliedly,  warrant  the  members  in  breaking  up  and  destroying 
the  society1!  I  submit  that  it  cannot,  and  more  especially,  too,  when  you  see  that  this 
Church  is  considered  as  a  unit ;  that  it  is  a  regularly  organized  body,  and  its  union  in  all 
its  branches,  in  all  its  entirety,  is  considered  essential  for  the  promotion  of  morality, 
and  the  preservation  of  the  souls  of  its  members.  Yet,  such  are  the  grounds  which 
are  now  relied  upon  on  the  other  side  to  legalize  the  separation  of  this  Church. 

I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  objections  which  are  taken  to  the  manner  in  which 
this  trial  of  the  bishop  was  had.  We  are  told  that  Bishop  Andrew  did  not  receive  a 
regular  trial,  that  he  was  not  regularly  summoned,  and  that  he  was  not  condemned  ac- 
cording to  any  fixed  and  settled  rule  of  law.  Well,  upon  the  subject  of  the  trial  and 
notice,  I  apprehend  he  has  had  all  the  trial  which  could  be  required  in  an  institution 
of  this  kind.  They  have  no  regular  formal  proceedings  by  summons,  no  pleading, 
and  no  jury  trial.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  man  was  heard,  and  had  an  opportunity  for 
defending  himself,  and  presenting  his  case  fully.  Bishop  Andrew  had  this.  He 
wrote  a  letter  in  which  he  stated  the  whole  case  ;  and  no  further  trial,  or  notice,  or 
evidence  could  be  required,  because  they  took  the  case  precisely  as  he  had  stated  it 
in  that  letter,  and  thus  adopted  and  acted  upon  it.  He  had  every  opportunity  of 
presenting  every  reason  and  every  consideration  that  could  occur  to  him,  as  proper 


to  be  heard  in  his  case,  either  to  justify,  excuse,  or  mitigate.  What  more  trial  would 
you  have  1  It  will  be  borne  in  mind,  too,  that  in  this  Church  the  bishop  is  amen- 
able to  this  Conference.  He  may  be  dismissed  or  suspended  for  "improper  conduct." 
That  is  the  language  of  the  Discipline.  What  is  meant  by  "improper  conduct?" 
Does  it  mean  a  crime,  according  to  the  law  of  the  land  !  Does  it  mean  any  positive  and 
express  violation  of  some  positive  rule  of  the  Methodist  Discipline  1  I  apprehend  not. 
On  p.  16  of  the  first  volume  of  Proofs,  is  the  following  extract  from  the  Discipline  : — 

"  To  whom  is  the  bishop  amenable  for  his  conduct  1 

"  To  the  General  Conference,  who  have  power  to  expel  him  for  improper  conduct, 
if  they  see  it  necessary." 

"  Improper  conduct,"  I  apprehend,  is  not  confined  to  some  violation  of  law  or  some 
settled  rule  of  Discipline.  .A  bishop  may  commit  acts  of  impropriety  which  cannot 
be  brought  under  any  fixed  rule  of  law.  I  might  refer  your  Honours  to  the  injunc- 
tion upon  bishops  to  be  found  in  Timothy,  with  which,  no  doubt,  you  are  perfectly 
familiar,  and  which  you  will  find,  goes  much  further  than  any  requirement  of  law,  in 
reference  to  his  behaviour  and  deportment.  Suppose  any  bishop,  where  it  is  allow- 
able, should  set  up  a  hotel,  or  allow  gaming  in  a  country  where  it  is  not  condemned 
by  law.  Perhaps  you  would  find  nothing  specified  in  fhe  rules  of  the  Discipline, 
and  nothing  in  the  law  of  the  land  about  it,  but  every  one  would  say  it  was  improper 
for  a  bishop  to  act  in  that  way,  and  clearly  under  the  rule  of  Discipline  the  Confer- 
ence might  condemn  and  expel  him  for  such  improper  conduct.  There  are  a  hundred, 
a  thousand  things,  which,  according  to  the  usages  of  the  Churches,  it  would  be  im- 
proper for  a  minister  to  do,  and  yet  which  would  violate  no  law,  and  be  done  with 
perfect  propriety  by  persons  who  were  not  in  that  venerable  position  in  the  Church 
and  society  at  large,  a  position  calling  for  a  most  guarded  circumspection  of  con- 
duct. Now  I  presume  that  this  rule  was  intended  to  meet  that  class  of  cases,  to 
confer  full  power  upon  the  Church  to  reach  all  such  cases  which  could  not  be  re- 
duced to  any  fixed,  settled  rule  of  law. 

Now,  if  a  bishop  acquires  slaves  after  he  becomes  a  bishop,  when,  by  the  ancient 
usages  of  the  Church,  he  would  not  have  been  elected  to  that  office  if  he  had  then 
held  them,  for  reasons  which  I  have  already  assigned,  and  which  rules  have  been 
in  that  Church  always  deemed  imperative,  and  he  omits  to  manumit  them,  or  if  he 
should  persist  to  act  as  bishop  while  he  holds  them,  and  is  yet  in  a  condition  to 
manumit  them,  his  conduct  would  be  "  improper"  according  to  the  rules  of  the 
Discipline  of  that  Church.  It  would  be  improper,  because  it  would  tend  to  destroy 
his  efficiency  as  an  itinerant  bishop ;  and  in  that  point  of  view,  this  Conference 
would  have  a  perfect  right  to  inflict  the  censure  prescribed  in  the  Discipline  upon 
him.  But  they  did  not  do  it.  They  avoided  it.  They  took  the  mildest  measure 
that  could  be  taken  in  the  case.  They  were  determined  to  support  their  Discipline 
as  far  as  they  could ;  to  have  an  acceptable  bishopric,  and  an  itinerant  bishopric, 
and  at  the  same  time  relieve  Bishop  Andrew  from  any  imputation,  except  so  far  as  it 
was  indispensably  necessary  to  carry  out  these  points.  Instead,  therefore,  of  expel- 
ling or  suspending  him,  instead  of  passing  an  act  of  a  punitive  character,  they  simply 
advised  (for  it  is  clearly  an  advisory  proceeding)  that  he  should  "  desist"  from 
acting.  At  the  same  time,  on  account  of  the  delicacy  of  his  situation,  they  left  him 
all  the  privileges  and  advantages  of  a  bishop.  Well,  say  the  gentlemen  on  the  other 
side,  it  is  placing  him  in  a  very  awkward  predicament  to  act  after  such  an  advisory 
letter  or  request  as  this.  Well,  that  could  not  be  helped.  It  was  placing  him  in 
that  position  unquestionably,  but  at  the  same  time  it  was  treating  him  with  as  much 
delicacy  as  the  case  could  admit  of.  In  a  case  like  this,  under  all  these  circum- 
Btances,  when  they  all  felt,  deeply  felt,  the  necessity  of  preserving  their  ancient 


315 

landmarks,  of  preserving  the  episcopacy,  and  at  the  same  time  preserving  its  itiner- 
ancy, and  of  connecting  the  two  with  the  usefulness  and  efficiency  of  their  bishops, 
they  took  that  course  which  in  their  opinion  was  most  advisable ;  and  the  question 
for  you  now  to  determine  is,  (for  the  other  side  mainly  rest  on  that  ground — there 
they  plant  themselves,)  Was  that  a  sufficient  foundation  for  this  Southern  branch  of 
the  Church  to  secede — to  leave  them  1  and  are  they  entitled  as  seceders  to  carry 
with  them  the  property  of  the  Church,  on  the  ground  of  a  radical,  substantial  depar- 
ture from  the  discipline  of  the  Church  by  the  body  they  leave  behind  1  I  submit 
to  the  Court  that  no  such  charge  can  be  legitimately  brought  against  us.  They 
cannot  rest  on  that  foundation  for  a  claim  to  this  property.  I  admit  in  all  these 
ecclesiastical  institutions,  and  it  must  be  admitted  on  all  hands,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
the  Southern  Church  will  admit,  the  importance  of  preserving  the  discipline.  Faith 
and  doctrines  are  paramount,  but  at  the  same  time,  discipline  is  important,  because 
it  is  enjoined  upon  them  (to  be  Scriptural)  to  do  all  things  in  order,  and  so  to  do 
them,  they  must  have  rules  of  action,  and  they  must  comply  with  them. 

We  are  not  left  here  to  draw  legal  inferences  from  the  doctrines  or  government  of 
the  Church  as  to  the  consequepces  of  this  separation  upon  the  property.  I  have  con- 
sidered this  subject  so  far,  in  its  bearings  upon  the  property,  upon  the  supposition 
there  was  not  any  agreement  about  it.  Has  there  been  in  this  case,  such  a  separa- 
tion by  agreement  to  separate  as  would  entitle  them  to  a  part  of  the  property  1  and 
if  not,  has  there  been  such  misconduct,  on  the  part  of  the  old  Church,  as  to  warrant 
them  in  separating,  and  still  entitle  them  to  hold  the  property  1  That  is  the  view  I 
have  taken  of  it ;  and  in  so  treating  it,  I  have  laid  out  of  view  any  agreement  about 
the  property.  But  if  there  is  an  agreement  between  the  parties  respecting  the  pro- 
perty itself,  it  must  govern,  supposing  they  have  any  right  to  agree  about  it  one  way 
or  the  other.  They  say  the  General  Conference  had  a  right  to  make  an  agreement 
with  them,  by  which  they  should  separate  from  the  Church.  Carry  that  out ;  as- 
sume they  had  the  right.  We  say,  that  even  if  there  was  an  agreement  about 
the  property,  that  agreement  was,  that  they  should  detach  themselves  from  the  main 
body  of  the  Church,  and  leave  that  behind  ;  and,  therefore,  they  could  not  carry  the 
property  with  them  upon  principles  of  law.  In  the  next  place,  we  contend  that 
there  is,  in  the  absence  of  an  agreement,  no  such  misconduct  on  the  part  of  this 
Church  as  would  entitle  them  to  claim  any  portion  of  the  property.  But  I  come 
now  to  this  important  point,  that  there  was  In  this  case  an  express  agreement  about 
the  property ;  and  that  must  settle  the  question.  You  can  deduce  no  inferences,  you 
can  draw  no  conclusions,  you  can  raise  no  implications,  when  you  have  an  express 
agreement.  That  must  stand  by  itself,  and  they  must  either  stand  or  fall  by  it. 
Let  us  see  what  that  agreement  was.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  First  Proofs,  p.  129  : — 

"  4.  That  whenever  the  annual  conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  their 
members  voting  on  the  third  resolution,  shall  have  concurred  in  the  recommendation 
to  alter  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  the  agents  at  New- York  and  Cincinnati  shall, 
and  they  are  hereby  authorized  and  directed  to  deliver  over  to  any  authorized  agent 
or  appointee  of  the  Church,  South,  should  one  be  organized,  all  notes  and  book  ac- 
counts against  the  ministers,  Church  members,  or  citizens  within  its  boundaries,  with 
authority  to  collect  the  same  for  the  sole  use  of  the  Southern  Church,  and  that 
said  agents  also  convey  to  the  aforesaid  agent  or  appointee  of  the  South  all  the 
real  estate,  and  assign  to  him  all  the  property,  including  presses,  stock,  and  all 
right  and  interest  connected  with  the  printing  establishments  at  Charleston,  Rich- 
mond, and  Nashville,  which  now  belong  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

"  5.  That  when  the  annual  conferences  shall  have  approved  the  aforesaid  change 
in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  there  shall  be  transferred  to  the  above  agent  of  the 
Southern  Church  so  much  of  the  capital  and  product  of  the  Metjiodist  Book  Con- 
cern as  will,  with  the  notes,  book  accounts,  presses,  &c.,  mentioned  in  the  last  reso- 


316 

lution,  bear  the  same  proportion  to  the  whole  property  of  said  Concern  that  the 
travelling  preachers  in  the  Southern  Church  shall  bear  to  all  the  travelling  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ;  the  division  to  be  made  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  travelling  preachers  in  the  forthcoming  minutes. 

"  6.  That  the  above  transfer  shall  be  in  the  form  of  annual  payments  of  $25,000 
per  annum,  and  specifically  in  stock  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  in  Southern  notes  and 
accounts  due  the  establishment,  and  accruing  after  the  first  transfer  mentioned  above ; 
and  until  the  payments  are  made,  the  Southern  Church  shall  share  in  all  the  net  pro- 
fits of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the  proportion  that  the  amount  due  them  or  in  arrears 
bears  to  all  the  property  of  the  Concern." 

I  think  no  man  who  will  read  this  case  over  candidly  and  impartially,  can  hesitate 
to  say,  that  this  General  Conference  acted  upon  the  idea,  that  before  this  branch, 
who  were  thus  to  separate  and  form  a  new  organization  in  the  South,  could  take 
any  portion  of  this  property,  which  was  devoted  to  this  charitable  use  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  the  annual  conferences  should  concur.  The  counsel  on  the 
other  side,  tell  us,  that  that  is  not  the  true  construction  ;  that  it  was  intended  that 
they  should  have  the  right  absolutely  ;  and  that  all  that  was  required  by  this  agree- 
ment— all  that  was  rendered  contingent  was,  that  it  should  not  be  transferred  until 
the  annual  conferences  thus  concurred.  It  appears  to  me,  that  that  would  be  per- 
fectly peurile.  What !  Give  them  the  right  without  this  concurrence  of  the  annual 
conferences,  and  yet  tell  them  it  should  not  be  transferred  until  the  annual  confer- 
ences did  concur !  Give  them  the  right,  but  not  let  them  take  the  property  1 
If  they  intended  they  should  have  the  right  absolutely,  clearly  they  would  allow 
the  property  to  be  transferred  at  once.  If  they  intended,  before  any  transfer 
of  this  property  should  be  made,  that  the  annual  conferences  should  concur, 
they  clearly  intended  no  right  until  that  concurrence  should  be  obtained.  I 
think  that  it  is  too  clear  to  dispute  about.  A  distinction  like  that,  if  it  was  carried 
out,  would  be  perfectly  refined  and  peurile,  and  totally  devoid  of  that  common-sense 
which  guides  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  their  conduct.  They  manifestly 
meant,  that  the  annual  conferences  should  concur  before  any  portion  of  this  property 
should  be  divided.  They  said  to  the  delegates  from  the  South :  "  If  you  find  it 
necessary,  when  you  come  to  meet  in  your  annual  conferences,  that  you  should  sepa- 
rate, we  will  agree  that  you  shall ;  but  we  cannot  agree — and  you  must  take  this  as 
connected  with  your1  action  upon  this  subject  in  your  annual  conferences — we  cannot 
agree  that  any  portion  of  this  property  shall  pass  from  us  as  composing  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  until  the  annual  conferences  concur."  And  I  think  there  was 
some  reason  and  sound  sense  in  this.  Suppose  that  this  institution,  as  the  managers 
of  this  charity,  were  so  connected  and  identified  with  it  and  with  the  beneficiaries  as 
to  entitle  them  to  dispose  of  this  property  in  this  way  in  an  emergency  of  that  kind, 
ought  it  to  be  done  until  the  concurrence  of  all  the  managers  is  obtained  1  Were 
the  General  Conference  the  exclusive  managers  1  Certainly  not ;  the  annual  con- 
ferences participated  in  the  management  of  it  as  much,  and  perhaps  more  efficiently 
than  the  General  Conference  ;  and  for  that  reason,  when  they  undertook  to  adjust 
this  matter  of  property  in  their  capacity  of  managers,  without  the  sanction  of  a  court 
of  equity,  with  great  propriety  they  required  that  their  concurrence  should  be  ob- 
tained before  any  portion  of  this  property  should  be  taken. 

Well,  now,  who  is  to  lay  this  matter  before  the  annual  conferences  ?  It  is  not  re- 
quired by  the  General  Conference  that  it  be  done  by  any  person  concerned.  The 
other  party  could  see  and  undertake  to  bring  it  before  them,  as  well  as  ourselves.  If 
they,  the  annual  conferences,  act  upon  it  and  concur,  when  the  subject  is  brought  be- 
fore them,  there  is  an  end  of  the  question.  Have  they  concurred  1  That  is  not  pre- 
tended. They  do  not  set  that  up  on  the  other  side.  The  counsel  on  the  other  side 


317 

says  that  the  annual  conferences  have  not  refused ;  that  there  was  a  mistake  in  the 
voting ;  that  the  proposition  presented  to  them  was  so  general  and  broad,  as  not  to 
reach  the  case  properly  ;  that  the  question  was  put  to  them,  whether  there  should  be  an 
absolute  and  unqualified  repeal  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  ;  and  that  it  should  have 
been  put,  whether  it  should  be  altered  so  far  as  to  allow  the  Church,  South,  to  take 
this  ratable  proportion  of  the  property.  I  admit  this  is  a  fair  and  reasonable  inter- 
pretation of  that  agreement.  The  proposition  as  presented  is  drawn  in  general 
terms,  but  it  is  fair  to  restrict  and  modify  it  according  to  the  subject  matter,  and  it 
would  have  been  proper  to  have  put  it  in  that  shape  ;  and  it  is  very  probable  that 
some  of  these  conferences  did  not  concur  in  it,  on  account  of  the  generality  of  the 
proposition.  What  then  ought  to  be  done  in  a  case  like  that  1  Why,  wait  until  the 
subject  shall  be  laid  before  the  annual  conferences  anew,  until  they  shall  have  passed 
upon  it  in  its  new  shape  ;  and  when  they  have  passed  upon  it  fairly  and  fully — when 
it  is  presented  in  a  modified  form,  which  will  bring  up  the  entire  question,  fairly  and 
distinctly,  for  their  consideration — then  it  will  be  time  to  pass  on  the  final  subject,  in 
the  disposition  of  this  property.  And  all  they  had  to  do  at  the  South  was  to  wait  a 
reasonable  time  until  this  matter  could  be  fairly  disposed  of.  They  have  not  thought 
proper,  however,  to  do  this.  What  is  the  consequence  1  The  consent  of  the  annual 
conferences,  necessary  to  enable  them  to  take  any  portion  of  this  property  according 
to  the  agreement  between  the  parties,  has  not  been  obtained.  This  agreement, 
stating  the  terms  on  which  they  shall  take  this  property,  necessarily  involves  the  in- 
terpretation, that  without  the  consent  of  the  annual  conferences  they  should  not  take 
it,  and  were  not  entitled  to  it.  There  has  not  been  that  consent.  Then  how  are 
they  entitled  to  it  1  Are  they  entitled  to  it  independently  of  this  agreement  1 
Then  they  can  violate  the  agreement ;  they  are  not  bound  by  it ;  they  can  set  up 
something  in  opposition  to  it,  when  it  is  made  the  plain  rule  of  action  for  the  parties 
in  this  particular  case.  All  must  abide  by  the  agreement  in  all  its  parts.  It  does 
appear  to  me  that  this  view  is  decisive  upon  this  question.  Why,  suppose  that  in 
the  case  of  a  township  incorporated,  having  property,  the  legislature  should  pass  an 
act  authorizing  a  portion  of  the  town  to  be  set  apart  to  form  a  new  one,  and  they 
should  make  provision,  that  in  case  certain  bodies  in  that  township  should  concur,  a 
portion  of  the  property  should  be  given  to  the  new  town,  could  they  take  it  without 
such  concurrence  1  I  think  not.  In  the  absence  of  such  a  provision,  as  separatists, 
though  with  the  concurrence  of  all  concerned,  they  would  not  be  entitled  to  it  at  all. 
With  such  a  provision,  there  must  be  a  compliance  with  it.  That  is  the  case  here. 
I  have  shown  that  this  Southern  Church  are  separatists  ;  that  they  leave  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  all  its  identity  and  entirety  behind  them  ;  that  they  set  up 
a  new  Church,  and  in  that  capacity  are  not  entitled  to  the  property  in  question. 
They  set  up  that  agreement  in  their  favour.  But  it  has  not  been  performed  ;  its 
terms  have  not  been  fulfilled.  They  did  not  wait  until  the  fulfilment  of  it  could  be 
obtained.  They  thought  proper  to  go  and  carry  out  their  new  organization  and  es- 
tablish a  new  Church,  and  then  claim  this  property.  The  consequence  is,  they  are 
not  entitled  to  it.  In  the  absence  of  any  agreement  they  would  not  be  entitled  to  it. 
The  terms  of  the  agreement  have  not  been  fulfilled,  and  they  are  not  entitled  under 
the  agreement.  In  any  point  of  view,  they  are  not  legally  entitled  to  any  portion  of 
this  property. 

The  Court  adjourned  until  Wednesday. 


EIGHTH  DAY.— WEDNESDAY,  MAY  28,  1851. 

MR,  WOOD, — I  shall  not  detain  your  Honours  a  long  while  with  this  case,  this 
morning.  In  fact,  if  I  had  not  been  so  much  exhausted  yesterday,  I  should  have 
claimed  the  indulgence  of  the  Court  for  a  short  time,  and  then  have  finished.  This 
case,  however,  is  too  important  to  be  slightly  passed  over ;  important  in  its  interests, 
in  the  character  of  its  interests  and  parties,  and  in  its  connexion  with  national  con- 
cerns ;  for,  I  think,  in  the  present  crisis  of  our  country,  it  has  a  most  intimate 
connexion  with  public  affairs. 

The  proposition  to  which  I  now  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  is,  that  the 
Church  (in  reference  to  its  property  I  now  speak)  had  no  power  to  make  such  a  divi- 
sion as  is  contended  for  on  the  other  side,  and  part  with  the  property.  I  do  not  put 
this  now  mainly  upon  the  idea  that  this  General  Conference  is  a  delegated  body.  I 
am  aware  of  the  distinction  between  a  delegated  sovereignty  and  a  delegated  agency, 
in  a  matter  of  business.  In  the  latter  case,  the  agent  continues  subject  to  -the  con- 
trol of  the  principal ;  but  in  the  case  of  a  delegated  sovereign  power,  the  sovereignty 
controls  the  constituency.  That  is  a  distinction,  and  is  one  which  is  too  often  lost  sight 
of  even  in  our  halls  of  legislation.  I  shall  proceed  to  state,  however,  the  grounds 
of  objection,  on  which  I  rely,  to  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  this  General  Conference, 
or  the  General  Conference  in  connexion  with  the  annual  conferences,  in  themselves, 
to  undertake  to  divide  this  Church,  and  divide  the  property  along  with  it ;  for  it  is 
particularly  in  connexion  with  the  property  we  are  now  to  consider  the  case. 

I  must  here  draw  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  a  distinction  which  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  adverted  to  ;  and  that  is,  that  these  funds  are  not  beneficially,  and  even 
in  the  point  of  view  in  which  an  interest  is  taken  in  a  public  charity,  the  funds  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  That  Church  has  a  beneficial  equitable  control  over 
them  as  managers  of  the  charity  ;  but  that  beneficial  equitable  control  is  for  the  be- 
nefit of  the  classes  of  persons  who  are  designated  as  the  objects  of  the  charitable  use. 
They  are,  as  has  often  been  repeated,  the  superannuated  and  supernumerary  minis- 
ters, their  wives,  widows,  and  children.  Now  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  if 
they  owned  the  property,  or  had  the  equitable  beneficial  interest  in  it  in  themselves, 
might  exercise  an  influence  over  that  property,  which  would  be  more  extensive  than 
they  could  over  property  of  which  they  had  the  mere  management.  But  it  would 
not  be  such  a  vested  interest  in  them  if  they  held  it  in  that  sort  of  politic  capacity, 
if  I  may  call  it  so,  in  which  charitable  uses  are  generally  held,  and  in  reference  to 
which  ministers  of  the  Church,  for  the  time  being,  take  simply  the  mere  usufruct ;  even 
then  they  could  not  alienate  it.  But  the  books  draw  a  distinction  as  to  the  powers  of 
beneficiaries  in  a  charitable  use  even  of  that  description,  and  the  case  of  a  religious 
corporation  or  a  religious  institution  which  has  simply  a  management  of  a  charity.  I 
will  refer  the  Court  to  a  case  upon  this  subject — that  of  the  Attorney-General  vs. 
Wilson,  18  Vesey,  519  ;  also  to  be  found  in  Shelford  on  Mortmain,  701,  702. 

The  Attorney-General,  vs.  Wilson. 
[Rolls.— 1812.  April  20.] 

Ceases  of  charity  estates  for  twenty-one  years,  the  lessors  being  not  mere  trustees,  but  having 
also  a  beneficial  interest,  set  aside  as  breaches  of  trust  by  undervalue. 

"  The  information,  stating  the  foundation  of  the  free  school  of  Pocklington  in  the 
fifth  year  of  King  Edward  VI.,  and  indentures  in  the  first,  year  of  Queen  Mary,  giving 
lands  to  the  master  and  usher,  and  their  successors  forever,  to  hold  in  trust  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  school,  complained  of  several  leases  of  the  charity  estates,  for 
twenty-one  years,  at  very  low  rents,  viz. : — The  13th  of  August,  1800,  at  the  annual 
rent  of  £3,  the  value  to  be  let  being  £92  per  annum  ;  the  3d  of  December,  1800,  rent 


319 

£2  13s.  4d.,  annual  value  £141 ;  12th  December,  1800,  rent  £1  2*.  6d.,  value  £35; 
26th  November,  1804,  rent  £1  13*.  4d.,  value  £26 ;  and  23d  November,  1805,  rent 
£5,  value  £132.  On  the  death  of  the  late  master,  in  1807,  the  relator  was  ap- 
pointed. 

"  The  information,  charging  that  the  whole  of  the  rents,  amounting  to  no  more  than 
£63  12*.  6d.,  is  very  inadequate  to  the  support  of  the  school,  and  that  the  granting 
such  leases  was  a  breach  of  trust,  prayed  that  the  defendants  may  be  decreed  to  de- 
liver them  up  to  be  cancelled,  and  to  account  for  the  full  value  since  the  death  of 
the  late  master ;  and  a  reference  for  a  scheme  for  letting  the  estate  agreeably  to  the 
intention  of  the  founder. 

Sir  Samuel  Romely  and  Mr.  Bell,  in  support  of  the  information :  Mr.  Hart  and 
Mr.  ShadweU  for  the  defendants. 

"  The  MASTER  OF  THE  ROLLS,  [SiR  WILLIAM  GRANT,]  (preventing  the  reply,) 
made  the  decree  setting  aside  the  leases,  referring  to  his  judgment  in  the  Attorney- 
General  vs.  Magicood,  and  observing  that  having  then  had  much  occasion  to  consider 
this  subject,  he  found  several  cases  in  Duke,  Vernon,  and  modern  reports,  particularly 
the  Attorney-General  vs.  Gower ;  that  the  short  duration  of  the  term  was  immaterial, 
and  the  only  distinction  of  this  from  the  late  case  was,  that  in  those  the  lessors  were 
mere  trustees,  and  in  this  instance  they  had  also  a  beneficial  interest ;  but  such 
leases  are  not  to  be  encouraged  on  account  of  the  inconvenience  both  ways,  the 
trustees  not  doing  their  duty,  and  the  lessees  getting  the  land  at  a  low  rent." 

In  that  case,  although  they  had  a  beneficial  interest,  yet  the  grant,  or  rather  the 
lease,  was  so  unreasonable  that  the  court  of  equity  set  it  aside  ;  but  at  the  same  time 
they  recognised  a  distinction  between  cases  where  the  managers  of  the  charity  have 
a  beneficial  interest,  and  where  they  have  merely  the  management  for  the  benefit  of 
others  who  are  the  beneficiaries.  Now,  in  this  case,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
are  not  the  beneficiaries,  they  are  the  managers  of  this  charity  for  the  sake  of  others, 
who  are,  it  is  true,  in  some  sort  connected  with  the  Church,  and  who  take  the  usufruct 
in  some  measure  in  ease  of  the  Church,  but  they  are  nevertheless  distinct  in  point  of 
interest.  I  have  already  stated  that  there  "is  a  connexion  between  the  officers  of  the 
Church,  when  the  property  is  given  for  their  benefit,  and  the  Church  itself;  and  I  showed 
you  a  case  from  the  first  Pennsylvania  Reports,  where  the  disposition  was  considered 
in  ease  of  the  Church.  But  still  there  is  a  distinction.  This  Church,  although  this 
property  is  given  in  ease  of  it,  would  have  no  right  to  divert  it  to  any  other  portion 
of  the  Church,  or  apply  it  to  any  other  interest  in  the  Church,  or  at  least  so  much 
of  it  as  may  be  required  to  fulfil  the  end  designed  to  supply  the  beneficiaries.  It 
must  to  that  extent  go  according  to  the  designation  of  the  charity,  for  the  benefit  of 
those  who  are  marked  out  as  the  objects  of  the  charity.  I  believe  I  have  already 
pointed  out  the  distinction  between  the  identity  of  the  Church  and  the  beneficiaries 
of  this  charity,  as  connected  with  the  Church  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  faith.  I 
have  shown  you  that  you  could  not  apply  this  charity  to  objects  which  were  not  con- 
nected with  this  Church  itself,  in  its  organization,  in  its  discipline,  in  its  identity. 
That  connexion  must  be  observed  ;  and  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  parties,  or  any 
persons  who  have  the  management  of  it,  have  a  right  to  apply  it  to  other  individuals 
'  who  .may  be  ministers  of  some  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  who  may  answer  the 
description  of  wives,  widows,  or  children  of  some  ministers  of  some  other  Methodist 
Church,  happening  to  be  of  the  same  faith.  They  must,  therefore,  be  entirely  con- 
nected, and,  as  I  before  observed,  in  addition,  that  organism  must  be  preserved,  and 
it  must  be  carried  out  by'  the  Court. 

Now,  the  annual  conferences  in  this  case  must  concur  with  the  General  Con- 
ference in  reference  to  the  management  and  disposition  of  this  charity,  when  any  dis- 
position Qan  be  made,  because,  as  I  before  remarked,  they  are  concerned  just  as 
much,  in  their  respective  spheres,  in  the  general  disposition  of  the  proceeds  of  this 


320 

charity  as  the  General  Conference  itself.  But  if  all  of  them  concurred,  the  power  is 
not  complete  to  undertake  to  divide  these  funds  ;  and  before  I  proceed  to  point  out 
my  objections,  I  will  meet  the  cases  advanced  on  the  other  side  for  the  purpose 
of  overturning  the  principle  I  state.  We  are  referred  to  the  Canada  Conference. 
You  will  recollect,  however,  the  Canada  Conference  was  no  part  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  It  was  simply  an  appendage,  and  it  has  been  so  treated  through- 
out, and  a  connexion  of  a  temporary  character.  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Court 
to  one  or  two  items  upon  this  subject.  In  1824  an  attempt  was  made  to  divide  this 
from  the  Church,  and  in  their  memorial  they  point  out  the  nature  of  this  connexion  : — 

"  Sensible  as  we  are  of  the  advantages  derived  from  the  connexion  with  which  you 
have  kindly  favoured  us,  we  are  nevertheless  constrained  by  the  circumstances  in 
which  we  find  ourselves  placed  to  request  a  separation." 

You  there  find  that  the  Canada  Conference  is  treated  as  being  no  integral  part  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  but  connected  with  it  simply  by  a  temporary  union, 
or  a  temporary  alliance,  if  I  may  so  call  it.  Well,  now,  in  respect  to  all  that  class 
of  cases  a  distinction  has  been  drawn.  If  your  Honours  will  advert  to  the  case  of 
Miller  vs.  Gable,  2  Denio's  Reports,  you  will  find  great  stress  was  laid  upon  the  fact 
that  that  particular  Church  formed  no  part,  no  integral  part,  of  the  German  Reformed 
Church,  but  that  it  was  connected  with  it  in  the  nature  of  a  temporary  alliance. 
That  was  precisely  the  case  in  the  Presbyterian  Church  controversy,  in  regard  to  the 
Churches  in  the  Western  Reserve.  It  was  there  held  and  finally  carried  out  in  the 
decisions  in  Pennsylvania,  that  it  was  not  a  constituent  branch  of  the  Church,  but  a 
temporary  alliance. 

I  apprehend,  therefore,  that  that  Canada  case  has  no  bearing  upon  the  subject. 
Besides,  no  part  of  the  property,  finally,  was  given  to  the  Canada  Conference.  And 
when  you  come  to  look  at  the  votes  upon  that  subject,  you  will  find  that  the  Southern 
conferences,  almost  to  a  man,  voted  against  their  taking  any  portion  of  this  property. 
You  will  find  that  fact  stated  in  page  47,  First  of  the  Proofs.  It  is  certainly  true 
that  the  Church  finally  did  make  some  allowance,  and  perhaps  the  remark  made  by 
the  counsel  on  the  other  side  was  correct,  that  if  they  were  not  entitled  to  anything 
the  General  Conference  was  wrong  in  giving  them  such  privileges  as  they  did.  The 
answer  to  all  that  is,  that  it  does  not  alter  the  principle.  They  can  draw  nothing 
from  that  case  to  support  them  in  regard  to  the  power  of  this  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  to  cut  itself  in  twain,  and  then,  as  managers  of  this  charity,  to  undertake  to 
divide  the  funds  in  this  way. 

The  counsel  who  is  to  close  the  argument  on  the  other  aide,  has  referred  to  a  case 
in  1  Peters,  542,  as  having  some  analogy  to  this  subject.  He  refers  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  which  gives  to  the  federal  government  the  power  of 
regulating  their  territories,  and  then  he  says,  it  is  claimed  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States,  in  this  case  in  1  Peters,  that  they  were  authorized  to  establish 
4  over  the  territory  acquired  by  treaty  a  territorial  government,  in  virtue  of  that  power 
which  is  contained  in  the  Constitution.  That  is  all  certainly  true.  Such  a  decision 
was  made,  and  I  believe  no  sound  jurist  will  ever  attempt  to  impeach  its  correct- 
ness. They  had  the  power.  It  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  power  granted.  When 
you  look  at  the  subject  of  the  grant,  which  had  relation  to  the  exercise  of  a  sovereign 
power,  it  was  in  the  very  nature  of  things  that  that  power  should  be  exercised  by 
creating  a  subordinate  delegated  sovereignty.  But  what  bearing  has  it  upon  the 
present  case  1  If  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  extension  of  her  territory, 
had  created  and  set  up  a  new  annual  conference  under  their  control  and  jurisdiction, 
there  would  have  been  some  analogy.  Then  it  would  have  been  simply  the  creation; 


321 

of  a  subordinate  government  under  their  control,  and  it  would  have  preserved  the 
unity  and  identity  of  the  entire  Church.  But  that  is  a  very  different  affair  from  a 
division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  creating  a  new  jurisdiction  altogether 
and  entirely  independent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Now,  suppose,  in 
order  to  illustrate  this  case,  that  under  this  power  to  regulate  territories,  the  government 
of  the  United  States  should  undertake  to  separate  this  territory,  to  declare  it  inde- 
pendent, and  to  set  up  an  entirely  new  and  independent  government  free  from  their 
control ;  if  they  were  to  do  that,  there  would  be  some  analogy.  But,  I  apprehend, 
Chief  Justice  Marshall  never  would  have  undertaken  to  sanction  such  a  proceeding, 
on  the  ground  that  the  Constitution  in  that  passage  referred  to  authorized  such  a 
course  to  be  taken.  That  would  present  a  case  somewhat  analogous  to  this,  and  I 
will  venture  to  say,  such  a  case  never  will  occur.  If  ever  this  country  should  be 
divided,  if  ever  a  portion  of  it  should  be  separated  from  the  rest,  and  it  should  finally, 
in  the  course  of  events,  come  to  be  fully  established,  it  must  rest  on  some  power, 
some  mode  of  proceeding,  out  of  the  Constitution  and  not  there  provided  for ;  and 
if  ever  this  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  divided,  as  it  has  been  in  fact  divided, 
and  if  ever  they  take  the  property  in  consequence  of  that  division,  without  a  positive 
agreement  between  the  parties  on  the  subject,  it  must  be  by  force  of  some  principle 
which  you  cannot  find  in  any  provision  in  the  government  and  discipline  of  the 
Church.  It  does  not  provide  for  any  such  case. 

Now,  I  submit  that  there  can  be  no  such  power;  and  the  only  way  that  I  can  see 
in  which  an  agreement  to  divide  this  property,  after  dividing  the  Church,  can  be  car- 
ried out  by  this  Court,  would  be  upon  the  principle  of  compromise  ;  and  if  these  par- 
ties had  fairly  and  without  precipitation  gone  on  and  carried  out  that  compromise — 
if  the  opposite  party  had  gone  regularly  on  under  the  agreement,  and  waited  until 
the  concurrence  of  the  annual  conferences  had  been  obtained,  pursuant  to  the  terms 
of  that  compromise,  and  had  made  the  arrangement — then  I  can  see  that  this  Court 
could  have  carried  it  out ;  but  even  then  it  would  have  required  the  sanction  of  this 
Court  to  give  it  effect.  Upon  this  subject  I  refer  to  Shelford  on  Mortmain,  608, 
referring  to  the  case  of  the  Attorney-General  vs.  The  Merchant  Tailors'  School, 
7  Vesey,  233,  and  Andrew  vs.  Trinity  Hall,  9  Vesey,  535. 

"  Trinity  Hall  in  Cambridge,  devisee  in  remainder  after  estates  for  lives,  in  trust, 
for  founding  four  new  scholarships,  for  making  additional  buildings  to  that  college, 
and  for  founding  four  new  fellowships,  were  held  not  to  have  accepted  the  devise,  by 
acts  done  merely  for  the  preservation  of  the  fund ;  and  upon  their  refusal  to  accept  it, 
after  the  death  of  the  tenant  for  life,  the  Court  directed  the  master  to  receive  a  pro- 
posal in  order  to  have  it  considered  whether  it  could  be  executed  cy-pres ;  and  the 
testator  having  expressed  in  his  will,  that  no  person  should  be  qualified  for  the 
scholarships  and  fellowships  he  intended  to  found,  unless  they  should  have  been  edu- 
cated in  Merchant  Tailors'  School,  the  master  was  particularly  directed  to  receive  a 
proposal  on  the  part  of  that  school,  for  the  establishment  of  a  charity  within  the  terms 
of  the  testator's  will.  A  compromise  afterwards  taking  place  to  apply  part  of  the 
fund  to  an  establishment  at  St.  John's  College,  in  Oxford,  with  which  college  the 
Merchant  Tailors'  Company  are  connected,  and  to  give  the  rest  to  the  next  of  kin,  it 
was,  with  the  consent  of  the  attorney-general,  established  by  decree.  And  the  next 
of  kin,  after  this  compromise,  having  filed  a  bill  against  Trinity  Hall,  for  an  account, 
the  bill  was  dismissed,  the  Court  holding  the  next  of  kin  bound  by  the  compromise." 

And  yon  will  find  also  in  the  case  of  Black  vs.  Ligan,  Harper's  South  Carolina 
Reports,  215,  a  case  of  this  character  and  description,  in  which  Chancellor  De  Saus- 
sure  advised  and  recommended  a  compromise,  and  even  went  the  length  of  delaying 
the  decision  of  the  Court  to  give  the  parties  an  opportunity  of  carrying  it  out.  But 
in  all  these  cases  it  must  be  done  under  the  sanction  of  the  Court.  In  the  case  of  an 

21 


822 

ordinary  alienation  of  property  held  for  charitable  uses,  the  sanction  of  the  Court  was 
required,  and  for  this  plain  reason :  that  parties  beneficially  interested  have  not  such 
an  interest  as  will  enable  them  to  alienate  it,  and  in  all  cases  if  a  man  purchases  and 
takes  a  lease  from  the  trustees  of  the  charity  which  is  improvident  and  unreason- 
able, the  Court  of  Equity  will  set  it  aside,  holding  that  a  party  taking  a  lease  of  such 
property  or  land,  takes  it  sub  modo,  and  it  ought  to  be  set  aside  if  the  chancellor, 
who  represents  the  interests  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the  charity,  should  think  that  the 
lease  is  improvident  and  unreasonable.  I  refer  the  Court  upon  this  subject  to  Shel- 
ford,  658  and  698. 

The  Court  will  find  a  striking  case  in  the  Attorney-General  vs.  Warren,  which  is 
to  be  found  in  2  Swanson,  291 ;  a  case  of  a  charity  lease  which  required  the  sanction 
of  the  Court.  I  will  refer  you  also  to  Shelford  on  Mortmain,  698.  If  in  the  case 
of  an  ordinary  alienation  of  property  which  is  held  for  charitable  purposes,  the  trus- 
tees and  parties  having  the  management  are  bound  to  a  provident  alienation,  if  that 
alienation  is  considered  under  the  control  and  direction  of  the  Court,  and  if  an  aliena- 
tion without  any  fraud,  without  any  mistake,  can  be  set  aside  merely  because  it  is 
unreasonable  or  improvident,  it  shows  how  completely  the  disposition  of  property 
which  is  set  apart  for  charity  and  other  public  uses,  is  placed  under  the  direction  and 
control  of  a  court  of  equity ;  and  the  reason  to  which  I  have  adverted  shows  the  pro- 
priety of  it.  There  are  no  beneficiaries  to  look  after  this  charity — none  that  have  a 
vested  interest  in  it  even  in  equity.  If  this  is  the  case  in  ordinary  alienations  of  pro- 
perty held  for  such  uses,  how  much  more  strongly  must  it  be  the  case  when  you  come 
to  a  subject  like  this,  which  stands  out  of  all  ordinary  rules  of  proceedings,  which  is 
not  provided  for  by  the  government  and  discipline.  I  mean  the  case  of  a  division  of 
the  Church,  and  a  division  taking  place  on  account  of  disputes  and  difficulties  arising 
in  the  Church.  In  order  to  sanction  such  a  division, — I  mean  when  you  carry  it  into 
the  property,  and  more  especially  when  you  carry  it  to  the  case  of  property  apper- 
taining to  a  charity  where  that  Church  have  simply  the  management  of  the  charity, — 
how  mucTi  more  important  is  it  that  every  disposition  of  that  kind  should  be  made  un- 
der the  sanction  and  under  the  control  of  a  court  of  equity,  whose  office  peculiarly 
is  required  to  protect  this  kind  of  charity. 

Now  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  if  a  little  more  time,  and  a  little  more  patience, 
had  been  exercised  in  this  case,  that  compromise  would  have  been  fully  carried  out. 
It  is  strange  that  in  these  religious  cases,  when  the  parties  once  get  a  little,  heated, 
they  seem  to  be  less  disposed  to  exercise  that  patience  and  forbearance  than  even  in 
ordinary  cases  of  controversy  between  private  individuals.  The  same  hot  haste 
occurred  in  that  division  in  the  Society  of  Friends  to  which  I  have  frequently  alluded  ; 
and  Chief  Justice  Ewing,  in  his  decision,  at  page  58,  remarks,  in  substance,  that  if 
either  party  had  not  fallen  off  from  the  ancient  principles  of  the  Church — patience, 
forbearance,  brotherly  kindness,  and  charity — the  meek  and  mild  spirit  which  has 
been  beb'eved  to  characterize  and  adorn  the  genuine  Friend  would,  under  the  bless- 
ings of  Providence,  have  wrought  out  a  perfect  reconciliation. 

I  really  believe,  that  if  the  members  of  this  Church  had  acted  with  a  little  more 
caution,  a  little  more  forbearance,  a  little  more  of  that  charity  which  Saint  Paul  has 
so  beautifully  described,  and  which,  I  believe,  this  society  have  generally  striven  to 
act  up  to — if  they  had  carried  that  out  in  this  controversy,  I  think  I  may  venture  to  say, 
that  although  they  might  not  have  united  again,  if  the  division  had  been  consummated, 
there  would  have  been  an  arrangement  not  only  as  to  the  ecclesiastical  separation, 
but  as  to  this  property,  which  would  have  restored  at  least  between  them  brotherly 
kindness,  and  perhaps  more  of  the  unity  of  spirit  than  might  be  expected,  considering 
the  condition  of  our  public  affairs,  if  they  had  actually  continued  together.  But  they 

21* 


323 

did  not  take  this  course.  Any  man  who  will  read  that  Plan  of  Separation,  must  see 
that  it  contemplated  a  full  and  fair  consideration  of  this  subject  in  the  respective 
annual  conferences  of  the  South,  and  that  upon  such  consideration,  before  any  divi- 
sion was  actually  to  take  place,  they  were  to  be  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  that 
separation  was  necessary — the  strongest  language  which  could  have  been  used  upon 
that  subject.  The  deliberations  and  decisions  of  those  conferences  would  have 
required  time,  and  all  great  questions  of  this  kind  ought  to  receive  time  for  their 
settlement  and  adjustment.  That  would  have  given  the  General  Conference,  North, 
and  the  leading  men  in  that  Church,  an  opportunity  of  going  before  the  other  annual 
conferences,  and  presenting  the  matter  of  changing  the  sixth  article  in  its  true  light, 
and  modifying,  on  sober  second  thought,  the  general  nature  of  the  proposition,  so  as 
to  present  it  in  a  more  definite  form ;  and  no  doubt  the  consent  would  have  been 
obtained.  All  the  members  of  this  Church,  with  whom  I  have  had  any  consultation 
upon  this  subject,  have  been  satisfied  that  in  that  way  it  would  have  been  effected.  But 
the  gentlemen  of  the  South,  instead  of  taking  that  course,  issued  that  address  at  the 
very  time  that  the  General  Conference  passed  the  resolutions — an  address  which  was 
manifestly,  instead  of  leaving  the  subject  to  the  annual  conferences,  inviting  and 
urging  them,  though  in  form  submitting  it  to  them,  to  make  a  division  of  the  Church, 
instead  of  going  through  the  process  of  submitting  it  to  these  conferences  and  getting 
their  decision.  AU  that  was  done  was  to  advise  them  to  appoint  delegates  to  meet 
at  Louisville,  to  form  a  Convention ;  and  the  delegates  forming  that  Convention  car- 
ried out  the  division  without  any  consultation  and  decision  upon  the  necessity  of  the 
case  by  the  various  annual  conferences  in  the  South.  This  led  to  the  difficulty,  and 
to  the  bringing  of  this  suit.  And  they  did  bring  this  suit,  and  no  further  efforts  at 
adjustment  were  made,  because,  from'  the  moment  they  took  this  course,  the  leading 
members  that  were  left  behind  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  knew  that  it  was 
perfectly  vain  to  attempt  to  effect  the  concurrence  of  the  annual  conferences  with 
this  suit  pending  over  their  heads.  And  I  think  I  may  venture  to  say,  that  if  this 
suit  was  now  out  of  the  way — but  I  hold  no  gentleman's  proxy  in  giving  this  opinion 
— and  a  disposition  manifested  on  the  other  side  to  meet  in  the  true  spirit  of  compro- 
mise, this  whole  matter  would  be  settled  before  eighteen  months  should  pass  over. 

But  while  I  make  these  remarks,  I  am  perfectly  aware,  that  there  is  some  excuse 
for  these  Southern  gentlemen — an  excuse  which  ought  to  be  considered  by  the 
Church  that  I  represent.  That  unfortunate  question  of  abolitionism — which  has  been, 
for  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years  in  this  country,  Pandora's  box,  to  let  out  every 
evil — has  wrought  them  up  to  a  pitch  of  excitement  which  forms,  if  riot  a  justifica- 
tion, at  least  some  excuse  for  the  precipitancy  with  which  they  have  acted  ;  and  there- 
fore allowances  ought  to  be  made  on  both  sides  of  this  question,  and  no  doubt  in  the 
spirit  of  concord  and  conciliation  they  will  be  made.  When  I  make  these  remarks 
on  the  subject  of  abolitionism,  I  do  not  mean  any  censure  particularly  of  any  persons 
who  have  suffered  themselves  to  be  carried  away  by  that  spirit.  I  know  very  good 
men,  and  pious  men,  have  suffered  themselves  to  engage  in  it ;  and  this  most  diffi- 
cult subject  to  deal  with  in  the  world — this  spirit  of  wild  enthusiasm  which  sometimes 
takes  possession  of  a  man's  mind — is  a  subject  which  is  not  perfectly  understood  as 
yet.  It  will  require  a  new  chapter  in  the  science  of  mental  philosophy  fully  to 
develop  it.  A  mah  sets  out  with  the  best  philanthropic  motives  in  the  world  to 
carry  out  some  great  principle  of  benevolence.  He  may  not  be  accustomed  to  take 
very  enlarged  views  of  things ;  hence  he  suffers  that  one  idea  to  take  full  possession 
of  his  mind.  He  goes  on,  filled  with  benevolence  and  good  feeling  towards  all  the 
world ;  but  he  finally  comes  to  meet  with  opposition,  and  that  opposition  only  stimu- 
lates him  the  more,  excites  a  feeling  utterly  polemical,  and  altogether  different  from 


324 

that  benevolent  motive  by  which  he  was  originally  actuated ;  and  what  is  more  ex- 
traordinary, he  becomes  the  victim  of  the  grossest  delusion,  imagines  himself  entirely 
free  of  all  animosity,  and  actuated  still  by  his  original  good  feeling.  I  say  that  these 
enthusiasts  act  upon  principles  of  mere  individualism.  They  do  not  look  upon  sub- 
jects on  a  large  scale.  A  man  takes  it  into  his  head  that  a  slave  would  be  better  off 
to  be  free,  and  therefore  he  makes  every  effort  to  free  him.  That  does  very  well  in 
a  mere  isolated,  individual  case.  But  when  you  take  a  slave  population,  composing 
the  entire  labouring  population  of  a  country,  and  undertake  to  free  them,  you  are 
doing  something  more  than  engaging  in  a  mere  subject  of  individual  philanthropy. 
You  are  creating  a  new  political  power,  especially  in  a  country  imbued  as  ours  is 
with  the  principle  of  universal  suffrage,  and  a  power  which  may  be  the  source  of 
tremendous  evil.  There  is  no  case  iu  history  in  which  the  whole  labouring  popu- 
lation of  a  country,  being  in  a  state  of  slavery,  have  been  suddenly  freed,  except  by 
our  British  brethren,  who  have  urged  us  to  that  course — a  course  by  which  they  have 
prostrated  completely  their  West  India  colonies.  This  matter  of  freeing  the  masses 
in  a  state  of  slavery  has  been,  heretofore,  in  the  history  of  the  world,  a  work  of  time. 
It  has  taken  that  course  which  Lord  Bacon  tells  us  is  the  course  of  nature.  All 
great  reforms  require  time — long  time — to  work  them  out  without  producing  more 
evil  than  good. 

I  have  made  these  remarks  upon  this  subject,  because  I  consider  it  as  deeply  con- 
nected with  the  great  interests  of  this  country.  I  have  endeavoured  to  show,  and  I 
hope  have  successfully  shown,  that  the  body  which  I  represent,  the  real  abiding 
members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  a  body,  are  not  to  be  charged  with 
being  guilty  of  that  kind  of  offence,  as  it  is  considered  in  the  Southern  States,  and.  by 
our  Southern  brethren,  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be  imputed  to  them.  That  there  are 
individual  members  who  adopt  these  abolition  views,  and  who  have  even  in  this 
Church,  by  their  petitions,  excited  the  Southern  mind,  and  induced  them  to  act  with 
the  precipitancy  to  which  I  have  adverted,  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

I  have  now,  I  believe,  gone  over  this  case,  and  I  think  I  have  said  enough  to  satisfy 
the  Court  that  these  plaintiffs  can  have,  upon  sound  principles  of  law  and  equity,  as 
administered  in  cases  of  this  kind,  no  right  to  this  property ;  that  they  have  not 
waited  to  abide  by  the  agreement  which  was  made  between  these  parties,  which  I 
verily  believe  would  have  effected  a  division  of  the  property,  as  well  as  a  division 
of  the  Church,  if  they  had  waited,  and  which  I  verily  believe  also  on  sound  princi- 
ples might  have  been  carried  out  under  the  sanction  of  a  court  of  equity,  but  not 
without  such  sanction.  And  I  do  think  if  they  were  to  discontinue  this  suit,  and  let 
it  pass  away,  that  an  arrangement  would  be  effected  between  these  parties  in  a  spirit 
of  peace,  and  in  the  spirit  of  that  religion  which  they  all  profess,  and  which  I  trust 
most  of  them,  or  the  great  body  of  them,  feel  and  act  upon.  Why,  it  would  be  most 
extraordinary  if  compromises  in  these  religious  controversies  could  not  take  place. 
Nine-tenths  of  the  disputes  of  the  world  are  settled  by  compromise ;  and  is  a  religious 
controversy  to  form  the  only  exception  ?  Are  men  who  are  bound  together  by  the 
same  religious  faith,  professing  the  same  principles,  worshipping  the  same  God,  seeking 
the  same  home  hereafter,  and  by  the  same  religious  process, — are  they  alone  to  be  an 
exception  to  this  great  principle  of  settling  controversies  by  compromises  1  I  trust 
not ;  and  that  I  believe  is  the  way,  and  the  only  way,  in  which  this  question  ever  can 
be  settled. 

If  the  Court  will  allow  me,  I  will  call  their  attention  to  another  subject.  I  am 
aware  that  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  raise  a  prejudice  against  my  clients,  for 
holding  on  to  this  controversy.  I  will  call  the  attention  of  the  Court  to  some  resolutions 
of  the  Conference  of  1848  on  this  subject,  to  be  found  on  pp.  94  and  95  of  the  Journal :— 


325 

"  Whereas  it  is  now  ascertained  that  the  recommendation  of  the  General  Conference 
at  its  session  in  1844,  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  articje,  so  as  to  allow  of  a  divi- 
sion of  the  property  of  the  Book  Concern  with  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connexion 
which  might  be  formed  by  the  thirteen  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States, 
has  not  been  concurred  in  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the  seve- 
ral annual  conferences  present  and  voting  on  said  recommendation ; 

"And  whereas  the  thirteen  protesting  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States 
have  formed  themselves  into  a  separate  and  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connexion,  under 
the  title  and  name  of  the  '  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  and  their  General 
Conference  in  1846  did  authorize  three  commissioners  (whose  credentials  have  been 
received  by  this  General  Conference)  to  present  and  adjust  their  claim  on  the  funds 
of  the  Book  Concern  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church ; 

"  And  whereas  our  common  and  holy  Christianity  prescribes  and  enjoins  the  most 
pacific  measures  for  the  settlement  of  all  matters  in  dispute  between  individuals,  as 
well  as  associations  of  professing  Christians,  and  the  whole  Christian  world  will  ex- 
pect ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  adopt  the  most  peaceful  and  conciliator) 
measures  for  the  settlement  of  any  claim  that  may  be  urged  against  them  ; 

"  And  whereas  this  Conference  desires  to  advance,  as  far  as  its  constitutional 
powers  will  authorize,  toward  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this  difficulty  ;  therefore, 

"  Resolved,  By  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  General  Conference  assembled,  that  we  hereby  authorize  the 
book  agents  at  New-York  and  at  Cincinnati  to  offer  to  submit  said  claims  to  the  de- 
cision of  disinterested  arbiters ;  provided  that  if  said  agents,  on  the  advice  of  emi- 
nent legal  counsel,  shall  be  satisfied  that  when  clothed  with  all  the  authority  which 
the  General  Conference  can  confer,  their  corporate  powers  will  not  warrant  them  to 
submit  said  claim  to  arbitration,  this  resolution  shall  not  be  binding  upon  them. 

"  2.  Resolved,  That  should  the  agents  find,  upon  taking  such  legal  counsel,  that 
they  have  not  the  power  to  submit  the  case  to  voluntary  arbitration,  and  should  a 
suit  at  law  be  commenced  by  the  commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
South,  said  agents  are  hereby  authorized,  then  and  in  that  case,  to  tender  to  said 
commissioners  an  adjustment  of  their  preferred  claims  by  a  legal  arbitration  under 
the  authority  of  the  Court. 

"  3.  Resolved,  That  should  the  agents  find  that  they  are  not  authorized  to  tender 
a  voluntary  arbitration,  and  should  no  suit  be  commenced  by  the  commissioners  afore- 
said, then  and  in  that  case  the  General  Conference,  being  exceedingly  desirous  of 
effecting  an  amicable  settlement  of  said  claim,  recommend  to  the  annual  conferences 
so  far  to  suspend  the  '  sixth  restrictive  article'  of  the  Discipline,  as  to  authorize  our 
book  agents  at  New- York  and  Cincinnati  to  submit  said  claim  to  arbitration." 

It  thus  goes  on  with  a  number  of  resolutions  to  the  same  effect,  inviting  an  amica- 
ble adjustment  of  this  case.  My  clients  then  cannot  be  blamed  for  having  brought 
on  this  controversy,  or  for  its  continuance. 

HON.  REVERDY  JOHNSON, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  I  propose  to  consider 
the  question  in  this  case  under  four  general  heads  : — 

The  first  is,  the  power  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844  to  adopt  the  Plan  of 
Division  of  the  8th  of  June  of  that  year. 

2d.  The  construction  of  that  Plan ;  which,  as  I  shall  maintain,  is  that  the  division 
of  the  Church  was  made  to  depend  exclusively  upon  the  decision  of  the  conferences 
in  the  States  in  which  slavery  exists,  and  upon  no  other  contingency,  and  that  the 
change  in  the  sixth  restrictive  article  in  the  constitution  of  the  General  Conference 
was  made  to  depend,  and  solely  to  depend,  upon  the  decision  of  all  the  annual  confer- 
ences of  the  entire  Church  as  at  that  time  constituted. 

3d.  That  by  force  of  the  division  of  the  Church,  produced  under  the  Plan,  by 
the  decision  of  the  annual  conferences  in  the  States  in  which  slavery  exists,  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Church  is  to  be  divided,  upon  equitable  principles,  between  the  two 
Churches,  North  and  South,  without  regard  at  all  to  any  change  of  what  is  termed 
the  sixth  restrictive  article. 


4th  and  lastly.  That  admitting  that  the  Conference  of  1 844  had  no  authority  to 
adopt  the  Plan  of  Division  which  they  undertook  then  to  adopt,  or  that  that  Plan 
was  conditional,  and  the  condition  not  carried  out,  the  state  of  things  which  still 
exists  entitles  the  plaintiffs  to  relief  upon  the  present  bill." 

These  inquiries  are,  all  of  them,  plain  and  simple.  To  be  fully  comprehended 
they  require  no  extent  of  legal  learning — no  depth  of  particular  research.  To  be 
properly  enforced  they  demand  no  particular  ability  ;  and  I  should  therefore  approach 
the  argument,  if  the  controversy  turned  upon  them  alone,  with  no  other  solicitude — 
great  as  the  pecuniary  amount  which  depends  upon  this  decision  may  be,  and  impor- 
tant as  it  is  to  those  whom  I  represent — than  that  which  ordinarily  and  properly 
belongs  to  the  relation  of  counsel.  But  I  confess  a  deeper  and  more  absorbing 
anxiety ;  and  that  I  rise  oppressed  by  the  responsibility  which  I  feel  is  upon  me. 
When  I  remember  the  origin  of  this  dispute,  I  lose  sight  of  the  dollars  and  cents 
which  it  involves,  and  for  a  moment  forget  the  direct  and  peculiar  interest  of  my 
clients.  There  are  reflections  connected  with  that  origin  of  such  general  and  pervad- 
ing interest, — so  directly  and  vitally  important  to  the  usefulness  of  this  very  esti- 
mable denomination  of  Christians  heretofore  so  harmonious  and  prosperous, — so 
material  to  the  quiet  of  the  public  mind,  and  possibly  so  important  to  the  very  exis- 
tence of  the  form  of  government  under  which  we  live,  that  I  feel  a  trembling  and 
nervous  apprehension  lest  the  proper  adjudication  of  it  by  this  Court,  instead  of 
being  assisted,  may  be,  in  a  measure,  impeded  by  the  manner  in  which  I  shall  dis- 
charge my  duty.  The  heart  of  the  entire  nation  has  been  feverishly  palpitating  for  the 
last  few  years,  and  yet  so  palpitates,  in  fear  that,  unless  the  very  cause  from  which 
this  dispute  springs,  is  speedily  and  forever  terminated  by  the  good  sense,  virtue,  and 
patriotism  of  the  people  and  of  all  the  authorities,  state  as  well  as  national,  the  peace 
and  happiness,  the  power  and  the  glory  which  have  heretofore  illustrated  our 
career,  and  made  us  the  admiration  if  not  the  envy  of  the  world,  will  be  substituted 
by  discord  and  wretchedness,  debility  and  degradation,  civil  war  and  bloodshed. 
And  is  it  too  much  to  say  that  this  alarmed  state  of  the  public  mind  is,  in  a  great 
measure,  to  be  attributed  to  the  very  controversy  which  your  Honours  are  now  called 
upon  to  settle  1  I  have  an  abiding  hope,  and  it  is  a  consolation  which  will  go  with 
me  through  the  argument,  that  the  principles  of  law  which  the  Court  will  have  occa- 
sion to  inculcate,  and  the  rights  which  your  duty  will  call  upon  you,  as  it  will  be  your 
pleasure,  to  maintain  as  existing  in  the  various  sections  of  these  United  States,  are 
such,  and  so  firmly  established,  that,  with  the  claims  to  the  respect  and  confidence 
of  all,  which  station,  attainment,  and  patriotism  give  to  this  tribunal,  the  settlement 
of  this  case  will  tend  much  to  quiet  the  public  apprehension  as  well  as  to  settle  the 
particular  dispute.  It  will  be  my  part,  as  far  as  I  am  able,  to  assist  the  Court  in  the 
deliberations,  which  I  trust  will  lead  to  this  happy  result. 

First.  Had  the  Conference  of  1844  the  power  to  adopt  the  Plan  of  Division  of  the 
8th  of  June  in  that  year  1 

My  learned  brothers  upon  the  other  side  deny  the  power,  and  deny  it  with  an 
earnestness  and  an  ability  which  demonstrates  a  foregone  conclusion  in  their  own 
minds,  that  if  the  power  can  be  maintained  the  rights  of  the  complainants  will  be 
established.  Where  then  in  1844  was  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  these 
United  States  1  An  associated  body  of  men,  tracing  their  origin,  as  far  as  their 
particular  and  exclusive  organization  was  concerned,  to  the  proceedings  of  what 
has  been  denominated  the  General  Conference  of  December,  1784.  In  the  exercise 
of  their  rights  as  citizens  of  the  United  States,  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  the  holy 
calling  to  which  the  men  of  that  day  had  devoted  themselves,  with  the  assent  of 
Wesley,  the  founder  of  Methodism,  they  resolved  upon  establishing  a  particular  and 


327 

exclusive  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  for  themselves  within  the  limits  of  the  United 
States,  if  not  co-extensive  with  the  continent  of  America.  I  understand  my  brother, 
who  spoke  first  upon  the  other  side,  as  conceding,  what  indeed  could  not  be  denied, 
that  in  the  very  nature  of  such  an  association,  whether  looking  to  its  original  and 
inherent  rights  at  the  moment  of  the  adoption  of  its  constitution,  or  at  the  objects  to 
be  accomplished  through  the  instrumentality  of  that  constitution,  there  must  exist 
somewhere  a  power  to  change ; — and  indeed  it  cannot  be  true  that  such  power  does 
not  continue  to  exist,  unless  it  be  true  that  as  a  matter  of  law  the  exercise  of  such 
a  power,  by  reason  of  that  exercise,  exterminates  then  and  forever  the  power  itself. 
Now  if  I  can  show  to  the  Court — standing  upon  the  authority  of  that  concession,  if  I 
had  not  even  higher  ground  to  stand  upon — that  the  Conference  of  1808,  which  dele- 
gated its  powers  to  the  Conference  by  whom  the  Plan  was  adopted  of  June  8,  1844, 
had  all  the  powers  of  the  original  Conference  of  1784,  the  controversy  in  this  branch 
of  it  is  at  an  end. 

Methodism,  as  you  know,  honours,  and  may  well  and  proudly  honour,  as  its  author 
and  founder,  John  Wesley,  of  England,  an  Elder  in  the  Church  of  England,  whose 
holy  life  and  extent  of  foresight  and  of  wisdom,  well  challenge  admiration.  Upon 
prudential  and  patriotic  reasons,  which  I  commend  to  those  who  differ  with  my 
clients  in  this  particular  exigency,  he  resolved  that  it  was  his  duty  as  a  man, 
and  a  subject,  and  a  Christian,  to  take  no  step  which  could  endanger  the  political 
institutions  of  his  country.  He  established,  therefore,  no  peculiar  Church  ecclesias- 
tically with  reference  to  the  government.  He  rendered  a  ready  and  willing  obedi- 
ence, from  the  moment  he  was  converted  to  the  lights  of  Methodism,  to  the  estab- 
lished Church  of  the  land,  believing,  as  he  did,  that  that  Church  was  inseparably 
connected  with  the  political  institutions  of  his  country.  His  power  over  Methodists 
was  absolute  and  despotic.  The  only  government,  so  far  as  it  was  a  government, 
that  Methodists  recognised,  rested  in  his  will,  and  reposed,  and  confidently  and  safely 
reposed,  upon  his  virtue  and  piety.  He  appointed  the  preachers.  In  him  was 
vested  the  property  of  the  Church.  He  controlled  it  in  everything  ;  and  the  mem- 
bers who  devotedly  followed  him  were  too  happy  to  live  under  the  government  of 
such  a  man. 

The  tide  of  conversion  rolled  on.  From  the  few  who  originally  met  in  the  private 
room  of  Wesley,  thousands  were  seen  coming  under  his  banner,  until  at  last,  for  con- 
venience' sake,  and  for  convenience'  sake  alone,  without  stripping  himself  of  any 
power  which  by  the  original  form  of  government  was  his,  he  asked  from  time  to 
tune  the  advice  of  his  followers,  following  it  or  not,  just  as  he  thought  advisable  for 
the  interests  of  the  Church.  In  anticipation  of  his  death,  he  intrusted  the  whole  pro- 
perty of  the  Church,  which  stood  in  his  own  name,  and  was  to  stand  until  his  death, 
and  the  entire  government  of  the  Church,  to  one  hundred  of  his  followers — preachers 
of  his  own  selection.  From  that  time  until  a  comparatively  recent  period  in  the 
history  of  the  sect,  the  whole  government  was  centred  in  these  one  hundred  men. 
At  last,  Wesley's  spirit  being  called  to  the  Author  from  whom  it  came,  and  the  pro- 
gress of  enlightened  civilization  having  yet  more  illuminated  the  public  mind,  and 
broken  down  many  remains  of  former  religious  persecution,  the  Methodist  Church 
within  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years  in  England  has  become  a  separate  ecclesias- 
tical establishment,  governed  by  a  president  and  governors  invested  with  all  ecclesias- 
tical power.  But  from  first  to  last  the  entire  power  of  the  Church,  whatever  that 
may  have  been,  was  vested,  first  in  Wesley,  then  in  the  one  hundred  men,  and  now 
is  in  the  particular  organization  which  prevails  in  England,  without  a  remnant  of 
power  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  any  of  the  followers  of  this  faith. 

My  learned  brother  who  concluded  to-day,  stated  in  perfect  fairness,  and  by  his 


328 

statement  answers,  if  he  will  permit  me  to  say  so,  a  great  part  of  the  argument  of 
his  colleague  that  there  was  a  leading  and  important  distinction  between  the  delega- 
tion of  mere  power  from  a  principal  to  an  agent,  and  a  delegation  of  sovereign  power 
by  a  sovereign  body  to  those  to  whom  the  sovereign  body  thinks  proper  to  intrust 
such  sovereign  power.  Now  such  was  the  condition  of  things  in  1784,  as  far  as 
concerns  the  power  of  John  Wesley,  when  he  wrote  his  letter  of  the  10th  of  Septem- 
ber in  that  year.  The  preachers  in  this  country,  during  the  revolution  and  before  it, 
had  vainly  solicited  from  him  authority  to  establish  a  religious  government  for  them- 
selves. This  he  steadfastly  refused.  He  was  restrained,  as  he  says  in  that  letter, 
by  the  patriotic  considerations  to  which  I  have  adverted,  that  such  an  establishment 
might  endanger  the  institutions  of  the  country  to  which  he  owed  allegiance.  A  train 
of  events  sundered  the  American  provinces  from  the  political  government  of  England, 
and  a  new  state  of  things  existed  which  rendered  Wesley's  scruples  inapplicable,  and 
made  it  his  duty  to  agree  that  there  should  be  such  a  peculiar  and  distinctive  estab- 
lishment. Where  did  the  predecessors  of  the  Northern  preachers,  from  whom  all 
authority  is  derived,  look  for  the  power  to  call  the  Conference  of  1784,  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  called  1  To  John  Wesley,  as  the  person  in  whom,  at  that  time,  was 
vested  the  entire  and  exclusive  sovereign  power  of  the  Church.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
inquire  whether  by  virtue  of  some  inherent  and  inalienable  right,  the  power  might  not 
have  been  found  in  these  gentlemen  in  1784  irrespective  of  the  will  of  Wesley.  It  is 
sufficient  for  me  to  show  that  in  1784  they  claimed,  and  claimed  alone,  the  power 
they  exerted  in  the  Conference  of  that  year,  under  the  authority  of  Wesley,  as  the 
author,  sovereign,  and  founder  of  the  Church.  Who  constituted  the  Conference  of 
17841  My  learned  brother,  who  spoke  first  upon  the  other  side,  would  have  had 
your  Honours  to  believe,  what  of  course  he  satisfied  himself  was  the  fact,  that  that 
Conference  was  called  together  not  only  by  the  preachers  of  the  Church,  but  by  all 
the  lay  members.  There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  the  statement,  although,  of 
course,  the  learned  counsel  believed  it  to  be  true.  It  was  a  general  assembly  of  the 
preachers  connected  with  the  Methodist  denomination  of  Christians,  convoked  only 
as  preachers,  without  reference  to  any  lay  authority  express  or  implied.  Not  being 
as  familiar  with  the  history  of  the  Church  as  my  colleague,  who  was  kind  enough  to 
undertake  to  lay  before  the  Court  the  evidence  which  is  found  spread  upon  the  records 
in  the  case,  I  inquired,  as  soon  as  the  statement  was  made,  whether  there  was  any 
foundation  for  the  assertion  that  the  Conference  of  1784  had  any  other  authority  for 
its  convocation  than  the  authority  of  Wesley,  and  the  authority  in  themselves  as 
preachers  alone  connected  with  the  Methodist  Association.  I  found  that  there  was 
not.  If  your  Honours  will  turn  to  page  5  of  the  Proofs,  No.  1,  you  will  find,  that 
immediately  succeeding  the  letter  of  Wesley,  which  authorized  the  separate  organi- 
zation, it  is  stated  :  "  To  carry  into  effect  the  proposed  organization,"  (Wesley's 
proposed  organization,)  "  a  General  Conference  of  preachers  was  called,  to  meet  at 
Baltimore,  at  Christmas,  1784.  Sixty  out  of  the  eighty-three  preachers  then  in  the 
travelling  connexion  attended  at  the  appointed  time.  At  this  conference,  say  the 
annual  minutes  of  1785,  it  was  unanimously  agreed  that  circumstances  made  it  expe- 
dient for  us"  (that  is  the  preachers)  "  to  become  a  separate  body,"  &c.  They  ad- 
mit no  constituency.  The  time  is  perhaps  coming  when,  in  all  probability,  they  will 
be  obliged  to  admit  one  for  the  good  of  the  Church.  They  resolve  for  themselves, 
and  for  themselves  alone,  as  the  possessors  of  all  the  ecclesiastical  power  known  to 
the  Methodist  Church,  to  carry  out  the  particular  organization  authorized  by  John 
Wesley,  without  reference  to  any  other  authority  than  his,  and  their  own  conviction 
that  the  good  of  the  Church  demanded  such  a  special  and  particular  organization. 
It  is  true,  the  Church  being  organized  in  1784  through  the  instrumentality  of  this 


.  F' 
329 

Conference,  the  travelling  preachers  who  constituted  the  Church — supposing  the 
Church  and  the  governors  of  the  Church,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  to  be  identical — 
that  from  the  period  of  that  Conference  until  1792  there  was  no  other  General  Con- 
ference of  the  Church.  But  why  1  Because  of  the  difficulty,  in  the  then  condition 
of  the  country,  the  wide  and  almost  exhaustless  spread  of  territory  over  which  these 
pioneers  in  the  cause  of  Christ  were  obliged  to  travel,  of  getting  to  any  particular 
location  for  the  purpose  of  consulting  as  a  body  upon  the  true  interests  of  the 
Church.  But  in  1792,  as  will  be  found  upon  page  12  of  Proofs  No.  1,  it  was  deemed 
advisable  by  these  governors — it  being  always  understood  that  the  governors  mean 
the  travelling  preachers  and  nobody  else — to  bring  together  another  general  assembly 
of  themselves.  That  was  called  in  the  same  way,  consisted  of  the  same  parties,  was 
clothed  with  the  same  power,  and  bound  to  discharge  the  same  duties,  limited  only 
by  a  rational  and  proper  consideration  of  these  duties — and  the  first  thing  that  they 
did  was  to  say  of  whom  the  General  Conference  thereafter  should  consist.  The 
ipconvenience  of  convoking  the  whole  was  still  found  to  be  pressing.  The  govern- 
ment in  the  abstract  was  a  good  one  ;  in  the  particular  it  was  objectionable,  for  the 
whole  could  not  be  brought  together.  Then  they  determined  in  1792  who  should 
constitute  the  General  Conferences  thereafter  to  be  convened ;  and  it  was  done  in 
the  form  of  question  and  answer.  The  question  propounded  was, — 

"  Who  shall  compose  the  General  Conference  1 

"  Ans.  All  the  travelling  preachers  who  shall  be  in  full  connexion  at  the  tune  of 
holding  the  Conference. 

"  Quest.  When  and  where  shall  the  next  General  Conference  be  held  1 

"  Ans.  On  the  first  day  of  November,  in  the  year  1796,  in  the  town  of  Baltimore." 

Now  you  look  in  vain  for  any  decision  of  that  Conference  of  1792  limiting  the 
powers  of  a  General  Conference  called  under  the  authority  of  the  Conference  of  1792. 
You  look  in  vain  for  anything  to  be  found  in  that  part  of  the  record,  or  anywhere  else 
in  the  Proofs,  indicating  a  design  upon  the  part  of  these  travelling  preachers,  who  ori- 
ginally constituted  the  entire  government,  to  cabin  and  confine  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
General  Conferences  which  were  thereafter  to  be  convened  under  the  authority  of  that 
Conference.  In  the  language  of  my  brother  who  spoke  last,  the  Conference  convened, 
under  the  authority  of  that  of  1792,  in  Baltimore  in  1796  had,  by  the  very  terms  of 
the  constitution  under  which  they  were  convened,  all  the  sovereign  authority  of  the 
sovereign  body  by  whom  it  was  delegated.  No  modicum  of  power  was  left  elsewhere. 
The  Church  was  not  to  look  elsewhere  for  any  portion  of  authority.  The  entire 
Church — meaning  by  the  Church  the  government — the  entire  sovereignty  within  the 
Church  and  over  the  Church,  possessed  first  by  Wesley  as  its  founder,  then,  under 
Wesley's  authority,  by  the  General  Conference  of  1784,  and  then  by  the  Conference 
of  1792,  assembled  under  the  authority  which  convened  the  Conference  of  1785,  was 
devolved  upon  the  Conference  of  1796,  and  descended,  in  an  unbroken  line  of  suc- 
cession, to  that  of  1808,  in  which  consequently  was  vested  the  entire  sovereignty  and 
authority  of  the  Church. 

It  is  unnecessary,  for  the  purpose  I  have  in  view,  to  trace  the  action  of  the  Confe- 
rences, in  particular,  from  1796  to  1808.  Let  us  come  to  that  of  1808.  I  beg  your 
Honours'  attention  while,  with  some  additional  particularity,  I  discuss  the  question  of 
the  power  devolved  upon  the  Conference  of  1808.  For  that  purpose  I  refer  to  p.  27 
of  Proofs  No.  1.  1796  has  passed;  1800  has  passed;  1804  has  passed;  1808  has 
arrived  ;  and  from  1796  down  to  1808,  not  a  suggestion  is  to  be  found,  not  an  indi- 
cation is  given,  in  any  part  of  the  history  of  this  Church,  which  authorizes,  by  the 
most  forced  and  distant  implication,  the  inference  that  the  Conference  of  1808  and 
the  antecedent  Conferences  were  not  clothed  with  the  entire  sovereign  powers  of  the 


Church.  I  beg  your  Honours,  throughout  the  argument,  to  remember  this.  What 
is  the  state  of  things  in  1808  7  The  Church,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  had  proceeded 
in  a  career  of  prosperity  which  the  world-  had  never  before,  in  the  history  of  the 
Christian  religion,  witnessed.  The  lights  of  Christian  civilization  had  been  carried 
by  these  servants  of  God  into  the  remotest  parts  of  the  continent.  The  densest  wil- 
dernesses had  been  penetrated — Christian  faith,  and  charity,  and  hope,  had  been  con- 
veyed everywhere  by  these  humble,  zealous,  devoted  ministers  of  the  Saviour.  The 
comparatively  limited  population  of  the  United  States  in  1796,  and  the  still  more 
comparatively  limited  one  of  1784,  had  swelled  to  the  extent  of  millions.  The  entire 
territorial  territory  of  the  United  States  was  beginning  to  be  populated,  and  the  pro- 
spect was  certain  and  absolute  that  that  population  would  increase  even  in  a  still 
greater  ratio.  Preachers  must  be  left  at  home.  The  work  of  God,  in  the  h'ands  of 
these  good  and  pious  men,  is  not  to  be  postponed  for  a  moment.  There  must  be  such 
men  always  left  in  the  vineyard.  The  flock  must  be  ever  sedulously  and  anxiously 
watched.  Some  of  the  shepherds  must  at  all  tunes  remain  at  home.  A  delegated 
Conference  then  becomes  absolutely  necessary  to  the  object  which  the  original  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  had  in  view — the  spread  of  the  Gospel  everywhere, — and  for 
that  delegation,  the  Conference  of  1808  decided  it  was  their  duty  then  to  provide. 

Before  I  take  up  the  terms  in  which  that  provision  was  made,  let  me  ask  a  priori, 
looking  to  the  necessity  which  forced  the  conviction  upon  the  Church,  whether  it 
could  have  been  then  the  purpose  of  the  Church  to  strip  that  General  Conference  of 
the  powers  with  which  those  from  1784  down  to  1808  were  clothed,  so  as  to  render 
them  incapable  of  accomplishing  that  which  all  other  Conferences  were  capable  of,  and 
had  been  authorized  in  terms  to  accomplish — the  salvation  of  the  Church,  the  pros- 
perity of  the  Church,  the  tendency,  by  means  of  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the 
Church,  of  wedding  a  man  still  more  efficiently  to  the  interests  and  safety  of  his 
country,  the  preservation  of  that  fraternal  affection  and  love  which  had  so  beautifully 
and  nobly  illustrated  the  character  of  the  governors  of  this  Church,  the  preachers, 
up  to  the  moment  of  this  unhappy  controversy — a  spirit  which  I  trust  in  God  is  not 
dead,  but  only  sleepeth.  What,  then,  was  the  condition  of  things  in  1844 1  I  propose 
by-and-by  to  call  your  attention  to  the  authority  on  which  I  speak  on  that  subject,  to 
show  that  the  existence  of  Methodism  in  thirteen  States  of  the  United  States  was  then 
so  hazarded,  that  its  destruction  was  considered  as  absolutely  inevitable,  if  things 
were  permitted  to  remain  as  they  were. 

Now  is  it  to  be  imagined  that  such  a  body  of  men  as  composed  the  Conference  of 
1808  was  so  short-sighted,  so  blinded,  that  they  would  necessarily  provide  in  advance 
against  the  exercise  of  an  authority  which  it  might  be  absolutely  necessary  thereafter 
to  exercise  in  order  to  save  the  Church  itself! — meaning  by  the  Church,  Methodism, 
as  contradistinguished  from  its  mere  government ;  meaning  by  the  Church,  the  Me- 
thodistical  sense  of  the  term — the  connexion  of  good  and  pious  men,  who  make  the 
Bible  their  creed,  and  hold  fast  only  to  that  which  is  there  expressly  disclosed,  or  may 
be  thereby,  by  clear  reasoning,  maintained  and  established.  Here  is  the  argument, 
in  terms,  of  my  learned  brother,  by  whom  the  case  of  the  defendants  was  opened. 
The  power  existed  in  1784,  because  it  was  a  peculiarly  convened  Conference  ;  the 
power  existed  in  1792,  because  it  was  a  peculiarly  convened  Conference ;  the 
power  existed  in  the  two  Conferences,  because  they  were  called  together  for  special 
purposes,  which  these  preachers  had  in  view  at  the  time  the  calls  were  made  ;  but 
that  the  Conference  convoked  in  1808,  being  convened  for  no  special  purpose,  was 
deprived  of  the  authority  to  accomplish  this  vital  and  special  purpose  of  preserving 
the  Church.  I  asked  my  brother,  and  I  think  the  Court  heard  me,  "  Do  you  mean  to 
deny  that  there  existed  in  1808,  somewhere  in  the  Church,  the  authority  to  devolve 


331 

the  power,  which  was  exercised  in  1844,  upon  the  General  Conference  1"  The  an- 
swer was,  "  That  is  a  moot-point ;"  and  by  a  species  of  argument  which  I  could  not 
understand,  he  did  not  argue  it,  because  it  was  mooted.  He  had  admitted  it  away, 
as  I  stated,  at  the  commencement  of  his  argument.  Then  I  have  a  right  to  assume 
that  the  power  was  somewhere  in  1808.  Where  was  it,  if  not  in  the  Conference  of 
1808  ?  I  crave  your  Honours  to  ask  yourselves  that  question,  when  you  come  to 
deliberate  on  the  case  in  your  chambers.  This  Church,  be  it  remembered,  even  unto 
the  present  time,  and  I  speak  it  in  no  offensive  sense,  as  regards  its  government,  has 
been  absolutely,  since  the  days  of  Wesley,  an  aristocracy.  Laymen  have  had,  and 
now  have  no  voice  in  it.  If  there  is  a  layman  within  the  sound  of  my  voice,  he 
knows  he  has  no  voice  now.  Heretofore  they  have  been  satisfied  with  the  govern- 
ment. They  have  acted  upon  the  saying  of  Pope, — 

"  For  forms  of  government  let  fools  contest, 
That  which  is  best  administered,  is  best." 

They  perhaps  will  be  found  changing  their  opinion,  when  they  find  it  is  not  always 
best  administered. 

Now  I  want  to  know,  if  the  entire  sovereign  power  of  the  Church  was  in  the  min- 
isters, the  preachers,  what  other  body  on  the  face  of  God's  earth  was  there  in  1808 
upon  which  to  devolve  the  power  of  dividing  the  Church,  which  must  have  been  in 
the  ministers,  than  the  Conference  of  1808.  The  ministers  made  the  Church.  The 
ministers,  in  the  governmental  sense,  are  the  Church.  The  sovereigns  are  the  min- 
isters, and  if  it  be  a  part  of  the  sovereign  power,  in  a  body  of  this  description,  t6 
divide  itself,  then  that  power  existed  in  the  Conference  of  ministers  of  1808,  or  it  is 
gone.  The  admission  is  that  it  cannot  be  extinguished.  It  is  absolute,  inherent,  and 
inalienable,  as  my  brother,  Mr.  Choate,  admitted.  A  body  unlimited  in  the  authority 
to  create,  is  equally  unlimited  in  the  authority  to  destroy,  responsible  only  to  their 
consciences  for  the  manner  in  which  either  authority  is  exercised. 

That  being  the  case,  and  I  could  not  make  it  plainer  by  dwelling  upon  it,  and  the 
Conference  of  1808  having  for  the  first  time  authorized  a  delegated  General  Con- 
ference to  manage  the  concerns  of  the  Church,  the  question  is,  Have  they  not  dele- 
gated all  their  power  1  How  are  you  to  ascertain  this  1  Whether  they  can  resume 
it  is  another  question.  But  as  far  as  the  delegation  of  power  could  be  made  by 
those  who  in  1808  possessed  all  the  power,  the  inquiry  is,  whether  the  Conference 
of  1808  did  not  invest  the  General  Conferences,  to  be  called  under  the  authority  of 
the  constitution  they  then  adopted,  with  all  their  own  authority.  Now,  what  doubt  can 
there  be  about  that  1  I  will  not  deny,  it  would  be  unjust  to  myself,  and  what  is  worse, 
disrespectful  to  the  Court,  to  contend,  that  the  aristocrats,  in  the  ecclesiastical  sense, 
in  whom  the  authority  of  this  Church  was  vested  in  1808,  might  not  have  said,  that 
they  would  reserve  to  themselves  a  part  of  their  aristocratic  power ;  and  I  am  not 
here  to  contend  that,  to  the  extent  in  which  they  have  reserved  a  part  of  such  power, 
the  Conference  called  under  the  authority  of  the  constitution  established  in  1808, 
possesses  all  the  powers  of  the  antecedent  Conferences.  I  admit  it  does  not ;  but  that 
only  shows  that  all  is  granted  which  is  not  excepted  from  the  grant  of  power.  If  there 
are  general  terms,  devolving  the  power  upon  the  delegated  body,  sufficiently  com- 
prehensive of  themselves  to  transfer  all  the  power  of  the  body  delegating,  then  it  is 
for  him  who  alleges  that  any  particular  power  was  excepted  out  of  the  operation  of 
the  general  terms,  to  make  it  good.  What,  then,  is  excepted?  Is  the  power 
which  I  shall  assume  existed  in  the  Conference  of  1808 — that  is,  the  power  to  adopt 
the  Plan  of  1844 — communicated  by  the  terms  of  their  delegation,  as  these  are  found 
in  the  constitution  they  then  created,  to  the  body  provided  for  by  that  constitution  1 


332 

I  said  that  a  priori  such  a  power  is  to  be  assumed.     If  you  will  turn  to  the  minutes 
of  the  Conference  of  1784,  you  will  find  the  first  governors  of  this  Church,  saying  : — 

"  And  we  do  engage,  &c.,  to  do  everything  that  we  judge  consistent  with  the 
cause  of  religion  in  America,  and  the  political  interests  of  these  States,  to  preserve 
and  promote  our  union  with  Methodists  in  Europe." 

"  The  political  interests,"  therefore,  of  the  States  of  the  United  States,  are  to 
control  them  in  the  union  which  they  desire  to  keep  up  with  their  brethren  across 
the  waters.  The  exigencies  of  the  cause  of  our  religion  here,  as  those  exigencies 
should  address  themselves  to  the  Church  here  from  time  to  time,  were  to  control 
them  in  keeping  the  union  between  themselves  and  England.  What  is  the  design 
of  the  Church  1  We  are  told  by  themselves,  in  1784 : — 

"  What  may  we  reasonably  believe  to  be  God's  design  in  raising  up  the  preachers 
called  Methodists  1 

"  Not  to  form  any  new  sect ;  but  to  reform  the  continent,  particularly  the  Church, 
and  to  spread  scriptural  holiness  over  these  lands." 

Almost  a  world  is  to  be  saved.  The  American  continent  is  to  be  the  theatre  of 
their  labours.  The  safety  of  man  throughout  the  American  continent  is  to  be  the 
object  of  their  efforts ;  and  how,  according  to  their  own  notions,  was  that  to  be  ac- 
complished !  I  ask  you  to  look  at  p.  26  of  the  Proofs,  No.  1  : — 

"  It  is  not  necessary  that  rites  and  ceremonies  should  in  all  places  be  the  same, 
or  exactly  alike  ;  for  they  have  always  been  different,  and  may  be  changed  to  the 
diversity  of  countries,  times,  and  men's  manners." 

You  are  not  to  confound  "  rites  and  ceremonies  "  here  spoken  of  with  the  sacra- 
ments of  the  Church.  They,  the  sacraments,  are  unchangeable.  They  are  ordained 
of  God,  and  no  authority  is  communicated  to  his  Church  to  alter  them ;  no  power 
is  given  to  the  Church  to  neglect  them.  At  all  times,  in  all  places,  under  all  cir- 
cumstances, God's  ordinances  are  to  be  observed.  The  "rites  and  ceremonies" 
mean,  therefore,  a  peculiar  mode  of  government  of  the  Church.  And  the  Church, 
speaking  for  itself,  -says  :  "  Show  me  the  country  which  requires  a  different  form  of 
organization  in  order  to  accomplish  the  holy  object  in  view — the  safety  of  sinners — 
and  you  not  only  show  me  the  right  to  change  such  organization,  but  you  establish 
it  as  a  duty  to  make  the  change,  a  Christian  duty  to  make  it.  Show  me  the  ex- 
istence of  a  state  of  things,  at  any  time,  amongst  any  people,  that  requires  .an  altera- 
tion of  the  form  of  Church  government,  and  you  make  not  only  a  case  of  authority, 
but  you  establish  the  obligation  to  make  the  change."  And  this  for  the  very  obvious 
reason,  that  otherwise,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  this  Church — whether  right  or 
wrong  is  immaterial — the  spread  of  Christian  faith,  as  that  faith  is  found  to  be  dis- 
closed by  the  Bible  ;  the  spread  of  Christian  doctrine,  as  that  doctrine  is  believed  to 
be  found  in  the  Bible  ;  the  spread  of  Christian  truth  and  Christian  tenets,  as  such 
truths  and  tenets  have  been  revealed  by  the  Gospel,  is  to  be  made,  under  all  circum- 
stances, at  all  times,  in  all  places,  the  paramount  object.  Once  show  the  field  in 
which  the  Church  is  to  operate,  in  the  Methodistical  sense  of  what  the  Church  is, 
then  the  mere  form  of  government  is  but  as  leather  and  prunella. 

Well,  that  was  the  condition  of  things,  and  the  obligation  upon  these  pious  men 
when  they  were  about  to  adopt  the  constitution  for  the  General  Conference  which 
was  to  meet  thereafter.  Now,  suppose  I  was  to  read  that  constitution,  with  the 
addition  of  some  restrictions,  which  by  way  of  argument  it  is  supposed  to  contain,  let 
us  see  how  it  would  present  and  exhibit  the  authors  of  that  constitution  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  Church  or  of  posterity.  "  The  General  Conference  shall  have  power 


333 

to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church,  under  the  following  restrictions  and 
limitations,  to  wit :"  that  they  shall  not  admit  into  communion  with  the  Church  any 
slaveholder  as  a  member  !  That  they  shall  not  admit  into  any  official  station  in  the 
Church  any  slaveholder !  That  they  shall  not  admit  into  the  high  and  important 
station  of  bishop,  the  superintendent  of  the  Church,  any  slaveholder !  although 
they,  as  governors  of  the  Church  may  be  satisfied,  that  without  the  addition  of 
slaveholders  as  members,  officers,  or  bishops,  the  Church  is  extinguished  in  the 
South.  I  am  assuming  the  fact  for  the  sake  of  argument,  would  they  not  be  ob- 
noxious to  the  objection,  "  Why,  gentlemen,  you  are  a  halted  and  crippled  body. 
You  are  not  only  not  invested  with  the  power  of  your  Creator,  God,  and  in  a  con- 
dition to  carry  out  the  great  and  vital  objects  which  he  has  in  view,  by  bringing 
upon  the  earth  his  Church ;  but  you  deprive  an  entire  land  of  the  benefit  of  this, 
your  Church,  which  you  profess  to  believe,  and  no  doubt  sincerely  believe,  is  as 
good,  if  not  the  very  best  of  sects  into  which  Christians  are  divided.  If  you  have 
done  that,  have  you  not  gone  directly  counter  to  one  of  the  articles  of  your  religion  1 
(for  what  I  read  from  p.  26,  is  the  22d  Article  of  Religion.)  Have  you  not  said, 
that  the  mere  form  of  government  is  to  give  way  to  the  exigency  which  arises  from 
the  diversity  of  country,  peculiarity  of  times,  and  peculiarity  of  manners  1  Do  you 
not  know  that  the  South,  in  relation  to  this  particular  institution  of  slavery,  is  diverse 
from  the  North  1  Do  you  not  know  that  the  times  in  the  South  are  not  your  times 
in  the  North  1  Do  you  not  know  that  there  is,  in  relation  to  the  particular  domestic 
institution  in  the  South,  a  peculiarity  of  manners,  and  a  conviction  consequent  upon 
it,  which  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  North  T  What  do  you  mean,  therefore  1  Do  you, 
can  you  mean,  that  the  Church  which  you  are  about  establishing,  is  not  to  be  estab- 
lished with  authority  to  accommodate  itself  to  the  change  of  country,  change  of 
manners,  and  peculiarity  of  tunes  1  Are  you  Christians  1  Do  you  not  wish  the 
South  to  be  enlightened  1  Do  you  not  wish  your  brother-man,  master  and  slave, 
there  to  be  saved  1  Do  you  not  see  that  if  in  the  spirit  of  fanaticism  you  keep  the 
Church  from  the  master  and  rob  him  of  the  blessings  it  is  calculated  to  confer  upon 
Kim,  you  deprive  the  slave  of  the  blessings  it  is  calculated  to  confer  upon  the 
slave  1  Do  you  not  discover,  if  you  are  sincere,  and  are  right,  that  there  is  hi  the 
existence  of  Christianity  a  soft  and  mellowing  influence,  which  lessens  for  the  time 
the  thraldom  of  the  slave,  and  may  eventually  lead  entirely  to  disenthral  him ;  and 
are  you  about  to  deprive  master  and  slave  of  the  happy  results  which  must 
sooner  or  later  flow  from  the  preaching  of  your  tenets  1  Do  you  not  see  that  you 
leave  the  South  blinded,  wallowing  in  the  very  mire  of  their  own  sin  1  If  you  are 
sincere,  and  believe  it  to.be  a  sin,  do  you  not  see  that  you  rivet  over  and  over 
again  the  chains  of  the  slave  by  depriving  him  of  the  blessings  of  the  Christian  hope, 
and  of  the  expectation  of  that  happiness  which  your  religion  teaches,  is  hi  the  next 
world,  if  not  in  this,  to  be  hisl  Do  you  mean  to  abandon  such  a  field1?"  Why, 
they  would  say,  No.  One  of  my  friends  whom  I  have  in  my  eye,  a  Northern  preacher, 
almost  looks  no.  The  heart  says,  No.  It  instinctively  goes  in  advance  of  the  judg- 
ment. (Addressing  the  defendants.)  The  South,  gentlemen,  is  the  theatre  for  your 
labours  as  well  as  the  North  ;  then  it  is  your  high  Christian  duty  to  accommodate 
yourselves  to  the  South,  to  the  times  in  the  South,  to  the  peculiarity  of  manners  in 
the  South.  Be  kind,  and  affectionate,  and  fraternal,  and  Christian  to  your  Southern 
fellow-men. 

Throwing  all  national  considerations  out  of  view, — high  and  lofty  as  they  are,  they 
are  nothing  compared  with  those  that  spring  from  the  higher  obligations  of  Chris- 
tian duty  ;  and  great  and  important  as  are  the  blessings  which  those  institutions 
confer,  they  are  nothing  when  compared  with  the  blessings  which  Christian  hope, 


334 

charity,  and  faith  teach  us  we  may  possess, — as  Christians,  is  it  possible  that  the 
Conference  of  1808,  on  whom  the  entire  power  was  devolved,  could  have  designed 
to  start  upon  a  miserable,  sickly  existence,  by  adopting  an  ecclesiastical  govern- 
ment, utterly  impotent  to  accomplish  the  leading  object  of  its  existence — the  dissem- 
ination of  religion  over  these  lands,  and  the  enlightening,  through  the  instrumen- 
tality of  this  Church,  of  this  continent  ?  Well,  then,  if  you  could  not  read  it  in  the 
proceedings  of  the  Conference  so  as  to  strip  it  of  the  authority  to  carry  this  Church 
throughout  the  South,  without  convicting  the  authors  of  the  constitution  of  worse 
than  folly  and  absurdity,  but  of  clear,  palpable,  and  manifest  violation  of  Christian 
obligation, — I  demand  of  your  Honours,  and  I  know  what  the  answer  will  be, 
whether,  if  such  would  be  the  character  which  they  would  have  earned,  if  such  had 
been  the  limitations  of  the  constitution  they  adopted,  you  will  not  bring  to  the  con- 
sideration of  that  constitution  every  intendment,  that  the  powers  necessary  to  ex- 
tend and  enlarge  the  Church  by  all  means  in  the  power  of  the  Church  were  in- 
tended to  be  vested  in  the  General  Conference,  provided  for  in  1808.  My  associate 
and  brother,  from  the  existence  of  particular  limitations  in  this  constitution,  to  be 
found  in  the  six  restrictive  articles,  has  proved,  as  I  think,  to  demonstration,  that 
•unless  some  one  of  these  articles  prohibits  the  Conference  from  adopting  the  particular 
Plan  of  1844,  it  had  the  power.  I  do  not  go  over  that  argument.  I  could  not 
make  it  stronger.  I  could  not  state  it  as  well.  There  are,  however,  two  other 
considerations  connected  with  the  subject,  to  which  I  beg  leave  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Court. 

The  General  Conference,  (on  page  27,  1st  Proofs,)  after  providing  for  the  manner 
in  which  the  Conference  shall  be  composed,  which  had  been  done  before,  go  on  for 
the  first  time  to  define,  to  limit  that  which  was  before  undefined  and  unlimited — the 
power  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Church.  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that.  As 
I  have  already  had  occasion  to  say  more  than  once,  the  Conference  of  1784  had  the 
authority  to  establish  two  organizations,  for  the  same  reason  that  they  had  the  autho- 
rity to  establish  one.  They  had,  consequently,  the  power  to  refuse  to  establish  one. 
Now  the  General  Conference,  under  the  constitution  of  1808,  are  to  have  "  full  powers 
to  make  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church  under  the  following  limitations  and  re- 
strictions." Let  me  stop  here  and  read  it  as  it  must  be  read,  because  I  shall  only 
add,  in  my  reading,  words  which  are  clearly  to  be  implied  :  "  The  General  Confer- 
ence shall  have  powers  to  make  all  rules  and  regulations  for  our  Church  under  the 
following  limitations  and  restrictions,  and  no  other."  Now  mark  that.  It  is  not  a 
delegated  authority  at  all,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
is  a  delegated  authority.  The  whole  power  is  given  to  manage  the  Church.  The 
whole  power  is  given  to  rule  and  regulate  the  Church  in  any  and  everything  in  which 
it  may  be  advisable  that  a  Church  should  be  ruled  and  regulated.  Nothing  can  be 
more  clear  than  this — until  we  come  to  the  restrictions,  the  entire  power  to  rule  and 
regulate  the  Church  is  in  the  Conference,  and  is  to  be  considered  only  as  restricted 
in  the  single  particulars  in  which  it  was  meant  not  to  delegate  the  power.  All  the 
rest  you  have.  You  are  not  to  imply  any  other  limitations  and  restrictions  than 
are  to  be  found  in  the  assigned  limitations  and  restrictions.  We  stand  in  this  our 
construction  of  this  constitution  upon  the  general  terms  of  the  grant.  Let  our  oppo- 
nents show  that  these  general  terms  are  to  be  taken  secundum  subjcctam  materiam, 
and  because  to  be  so  taken  are  to  be  subject  to  specific  restrictions.  What  is  the 
nibjtcta  materia?  It  is  not  restriction.  Why,  said  one  of  my  learned  brothers 
on  the  other  side,  the  authority  to  rule  and  regulate  the  Church  is  not  the  authority 
to  destroy  it.  That  begs  the  question — in  fact,  was  the  Church  destroyed  ?  Would 
it  not  have  been  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  precisely  as  it  is  now  here  at  the 


335 

North,  if  the  original  Conference  of  1784  had  provided  for  two  distinct  organizations 
as  to  government  1  Nobody  can  deny  it.  The  proposition  confounds  the  Church 
with  the  government  of  the  Church.  They  are  as  distinct  as  day  from  night.  The 
Church,  according  to  the  Methodistical  sense  of  the  term,  is  necessarily  unchangeable, 
because  it  consists  of  a  body  of  men  who  preach  that  only  which  appears  in  the 
Bible,  or  can  be  made  out  by  the  true  and  fair  interpretation  of  what  is  in  the  Bible. 
The  government  of  the  Church,  or,  according  to  the  language  of  Methodists,  "  the 
rites  and  ceremonies"  of  the  Church,  which  are  synonymous  with  the  government  of 
the  Church,  unlike  the  Church,  which  rests  upon  the  truths  of  the  Bible,  may  be 
modified,  must  be  modified,  to  accommodate  themselves  to  times,  places,  and  man- 
ners. These  subjects  materitz,  therefore,  which  my  learned  brother,  to  whom  I  am 
now  particularly  repfying,  seems  to  suppose  throw  a  limitation  upon  this  power,  so 
far  from  doing  so,  operate  demonstrably  to  prove  the  existence  of  the  power.  Recol- 
lect, it  is  a  body  of  Methodist  preachers  who  are  speaking  in  1808,  not  the  priests  or 
the  local  authorities  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  nor  the  bishops  nor  the  other  authorities  of 
the  Church  of  England.  It  is,  then,  these  preachers,  these  Methodist  gentlemen,  who 
start  their  existence  in  the  world  by  proclaiming  that  their  Church  is  one  thing,  their 
govemment  of  the  Church  another.  Their  Church  is  indivisible  and  indestructible. 
It  stands  upon  the  Rock  of  Ages.  The  government  of  the  Church  is  to  be  founded 
in  the  prudence,  and  wisdom,  and  foresight  of  men,  and  is  to  be  changed  from  time 
to  time,  as  circumstances  render  it  necessary  for  the  well-being  of  the  Church. 

There  is  a  limitation,  however,  upon  the  power  of  the  Conference,  which,  for  the 
very  reason  I  have  adverted  to,  is  placed  beyond  their  power  :  that  is  the  limitation 
to  be  found  in  the  first  restrictive  article.  I  ask  your  Honours  to  come  with  me  for 
a  moment,  to  see  the  effect  of^that  particular  restriction  upon  the  question  which  you 
have  to  decide.  They  have  given  all  powers  to  make  all  rules  and  regulations,  sub- 
ject to  certain  restrictions,  and  among  them  is  : — 

"  First.  The  General  Conference  shall  not  revoke,  alter,  or  change  our  articles  of 
religion,  nor  establish  any  new  standards  or  rules  of  doctrine  contrary  to  our  present 
existing  and  established  standards  of  doctrine." 

Articles  of  religion,  of  course,  are  not  mere  governmental  provisions.  Now  if  you 
will  turn  to  the  proviso  in  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  which  authorizes  contingently 
a  change  of  the  restrictive  articles,  you  will  find  that  this  first  article  is  specially  ex- 
cepted.  Upon  the  recommendation  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  and  the 
subsequent  sanction  of  three-fourths  of  the  annual  conferences,  the  second,  third, 
fourth,  fifth,  and  sixth  restrictive  articles  may  be  changed,  but  not  the  first.  The 
language  is  : — 

"  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  upon  the  concurrent  recommendation  of  three-fourths 
of  all  the  members  of  the  several  annual  conferences,  who  shall  be  present  and  vote 
upon  such  recommendation,  then  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference 
succeeding  shall  suffice  to  alter  any  of  the  above  restrictions,  except  the  first  article : 
and  also,  whenever  such  alteration  or  alterations  shall  have  been  first  recommended  by 
two-thirds  of  the  General  Conference,  so  soon  as  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  all 
the  annual  conferences  shall  have  concurred  as  aforesaid,  such  alteration  or  altera- 
tions shall  take  effect." 

The  first  article,  therefore,  is  beyond  change.  It  stands  as  the  Rock  upon  which 
the  Church  is  built.  Everything  else  connected  with  it  may  be  beat  upon  by  the 
storms,  and  finally  washed  away  and  destroyed,  but  that  is  there  now  and  forever,  un- 
til the  great  judgment-day  itself  shall  arrive,  when  the  hearts  of  all  shall  be  disclosed, 
and  the  consequences  of  that  religion,  in  blessing  or  in  woe,  shall  fall  upon  saved  or 


336 

sinning  men.  What  are  the  articles  of  religion  of  this  Church  1  What  are  its  exist- 
ing and  established  standards  of  doctrine  1  Go  to  page  25  of  the  Proofs  No.  1 — 
Extracts  from  the  Discipline  of  1840.  You  have  been  told  that  this  Discipline  is  pub- 
lished by  each  General  Conference,  as  one  entire  Gospel,  so  to  speak,  of  the  Church. 
If  errors  have  been  discovered,  they  are  corrected.  If  omissions  are  to  be  found  in 
antecedent  Disciplines,  they  are  supplied,  and  each  revolving  four  years  gives  to  this 
Church  the  entire  evidence  of  its  articles  of  religion  and  its  doctrine.  Now  in  1840, 
as  from  the  first,  there  is  no  change.  This  comes,  as  it  were,  from  the  mouth  of 
Wesley ;  he  is  speaking  to  you,  almost  as  it  were,  from  the  dead,  through  his  suc- 
cessors ;  and  you  are  told  by  this  Church  in  1840,  and  of  course  in  1844 — for  there 
was  no  change  in  this  particular — that 

"  The  Holy  Scriptures  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  :  so  that  whatsoever 
is  not  read  therein,  nor  may  be  proved  thereby,  is  not  to  be  required  of  any  man,  that 
it  should  be  believed  as  an  article  of  faith,  or  be  thought  requisite  or  necessary  to  sal- 
vation." 

Do  as  you  please,  brothers,  in  everything  else.  If  you  keep  within  the  truths  ex- 
pressly inculcated  by  the  Bible,  or  which  may  be  established  by  a  reasonable  and 
fair  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  you  are  blameless  in  the  sight  of  the  Church,  in  the 
sight  of  man  and  of  God.  What  is  your  doctrine  1  Turn  to  the  succeeding  passage. 
What  is  your  doctrine  in  relation  to  the  peculiar  mode  of  governing  the  Church  1 
First,  I  should  have  asked  the  Court  to  look  to  article  13,  in  order  to  see  what  is 
the  Church  hi  the  contemplation  of  these  Methodist  gentlemen  and  their  predeces- 
sors : — 

"  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  which  the  pure 
word  of  God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  duly  administered,  according  to  Christ's 
ordinance  in  all  those  things  that  of  necessity  are  requisite  to  the  same." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  Methodistical  opinion  of  what  the  Church  is.  We  have  the 
Methodist  declaration  of  what  the  articles  of  belief  of  the  Church  are  ;  and  going  to 
the  succeeding  article,  upon  the  succeeding  page,  we  have  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
comprehending  the  mode  of  government,  and  it  tells  us  that  the  mode  of  government 
may  be  altered  from  time  to  time  as  occasion  demands.  I  have  not  time,  nor  is  it 
necessary,  to  go  through  every  thing  that  has  been  referred  to.  I  refer  in  the  general 
to  the  debates  in  the  Conference  of  1840  in  Baltimore  ;  to  the  debates  in  the  Con- 
ference in  New- York,  in  this  very  celebrated  year  of  1844;  to  the  answer  of  the 
American  bishops  to  the  letter  of  the  English  Church  in  1836  and  1840 ;  to  the 
speech  of  Bishop  Soule  in  the  Conference  of  1844  ;  and  to  the  speech  of  now  Bishop 
Hamline,  in  what  is  called  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  1844,  to  show  that 
this  very  subject  of  slavery,  if  continued  to  be  pressed,  and  suffered  to  become 
a  doctrine  in  the  government  of  the  Church,  would  necessarily  lead  to  the  ruin  of  the 
Church,  South.  I  speak  it  not  in  terms  so  strong  as  they  addressed  to  the  Confer- 
ence. In  that  kind  and  affectionate  appeal  to  the  Conference  of  1844,  which,  tramp- 
ling, as  I  think,  on  all  law,  pronounced  a  severe  judgment  of  condemnation  upon  one  , 
of  its  bishops,  when  addressing  the  Conference  with  all  the  authority  of  that  wisdom 
which  belonged  to  the  bishops,  and  all  the  persuasiveness  to  be  found  in  the  long 
lives  they  had  spent  in  devotion  to  the  Church,  and  in  the  fact  of  their  intimate  and 
entire  association  with  the  Church,  South  and  North,  the  bishops  said  :  "  For  God's 
sake,"  (I  do  not  profess  to  give  the  words,)  "  for  the  sake  of  our  common  Father,  our 
common  God,  for  the  sake  of  the  Church  to  which  we  have  devoted  our  lives,  stay 
your  proceedings  for  another  four  years,  or  the  Church  will  be  ruined  !"  The  British 
Conference  are  told  by  the  bishops,  North  as  well  as  South,  in  the  kind  and  Christian 


337 

response  which  they  gave  to  their  application,  which  I  forbear  to  speak  of,  lest  I 
should  go  beyond  the  limit  which  charity  would  prescribe,  "  You  do  not  know  the 
condition  of  things  in  this  our  America.  This  very  subject  of  slavery  was  sought  to 
be  made  a  fundamental  doctrine  in  our  Church  in  1784.  It  was  obliged  to  be  sus- 
pended in  1785.  It  was  renewed  from  time  to  time  until,  in  order  to  save  the  Church 
from  disruption,  to  keep  together  this  body  of  preachers  constituting  the  Church, 
to  keep  in  existence  the  body  of  men  who  believe  and  preach  the  doctrines  which  we 
pronounce  to  be  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that  we  should 
consult,  even  if  they  are  so  to  be  considered,  the  prejudices  of  the  South." 

Now  if  this  state  of  things  existed  in  fact, — and  the  evidence  is  all  one  way  until  we 
come  to  the  proceedings  of  the  Conference  of  1848,  of  which  I  shall  have  occasion 
hereafter  to  speak,  North  and  South  in  the  main  proclaiming  the  same  truth,  that  the 
fate  of  the  Church  was  sealed,  if  the  doctrines  and  government  of  the  Church  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery  were  made  more  stringent  than  they  were  made  in  1808  and 
1816, — is  it  conceivable  that  the  Conference  to  whom  was  delegated  all  power  to 
pass  all  rules  and  regulations,  except  so  far  as  specially  restricted,  for  the  Church, 
was  not  clothed  with  power  to  preserve  the  Church  ?  The  state  of  things  which 
existed  presented  the  question,  Is  the  Church  to  be  destroyed  or  to  survive  1  Are  the 
doctrines  of  this  our  Church  to  be  carried  throughout  these  United  States,  and  spread 
over  the  continent  of  America  by  and  through  us,  or  not  1  That  is  the  question. 
The  argument  of  my  learned  brothers  on  the  other  side  is,  that  because  under  the 
power  to  rule  and  regulate,  given  to  a  governmental  corporation,  political  or  as- 
sociated, there  is  not  delegated  the  power  to  destroy,  it  is  a  legitimate  inference  that 
in  the  particular  case  under  the  delegation  of  power  to  rule  and  regulate  the  Church 
there  is  not  delegated  the  power  to  preserve  the  Church.  It  is  perfectly  immaterial, 
as  far  as  the  existence  of  the  power  is  concerned,  (I  am  sure  your  Honours  will  not 
think  you  have  a  right  to  decide  as  to  the  mere  exercise  of  the  power,)  whether  this 
state  of  things,  believed  to  exist  in  1844,  existed  or  not.  If  it  did  exist,  the  authority 
to  rule  and  regulate  the  Church  gave  authority  so  to  rule  and  regulate  as  to  save  the 
Church ;  and  whether  it  existed  or  not  was  a  question  upon  which  the  judgment  of  the 
governing  power  was  to  be  passed,  and  exclusively  passed.  From  that  judgment 
there  was  no  appeal.  Once  devolve  upon  the  Conference  the  power,  the  jurisdiction, 
to  do  the  deed  challenged,  under  any  state  of  things  which  will  justify  the  doing  of 
the  deed,  then  the  exercise  of  the  power  is  conclusive.  Without  making  any  particu- 
lar reference  to  the  case,  your  Honours  will  remember  the  opinion  of  Chief  Justice 
Marshall,  in  the  case  of  McCullough  and  the  State  of  Maryland,  reported  in  3 
Wheaton,  in  which  he  maintained  the  constitutionality  of  the  Bank  of  the  United 
States  upon  the  ground  of  necessity,  or  its  being  one  of  the  means  of  contributing  to 
the  wholesome  exercise  of  the  delegated  powers  to  Congress.  The  Court  said,  upon 
the  existence  of  the  necessity,  the  judgment  of  Congress  is  conclusive ;  and  nothing 
can  be  more  true  as  a  question  of  law.  So  we  say  here,  that  the  Conference  of  1844 
had  the  authority  by  rules  and  regulations — and  the  Plan  of  June  8th  is  but  a  rule  or 
regulation  to  preserve  the  Church — to  govern  the  Church,  which  implies  the  authority 
to  preserve  and  keep  it  from  destruction.  A  state  of  things  existed  which  they  ad- 
judged rendered  that  rule  necessary — whether  wisely  or  unwisely,  correctly  or  incor- 
rectly, is,  hi  this  connexion,  perfectly  immaterial ;  it  was  their  judgment,  and  the 
thing  judged  was  within  their  jurisdiction,  just  like  the  case  to  which  I  have  adverted. 
The  Bank  of  the  United  States,  as  a  fiscal  instrument  by  which  to  enable  the  Congress 
to  carry  into  beneficial  operation  some  of  the  powers  expressly  devolved  upon  them, 
was  for  Congress  alone  and  exclusively  to  decide. 

A  word  or  two  more  and  I  leave  this  point.     This  Church  was  not,  as  is  supposed 

22 


338 

by  the  other  side,  designed  to  be  confined  to  the  United  States.  It  is  a  great  error 
to  suppose  it.  It  does  great  injustice  to  the  Church  ;  and  if  our  brethren  of  the 
North  had  had  the  privilege  of  getting  up  and  denying  such  a  proposition,  I  am 
almost  inclined  to  think  that  all  of  them  would  with  one  accord  have  said,  "  It  is  not 
so.  We  stop  not  at  the  limits  of  the  United  States,  great  as  those  limits  are.  The 
world  is  before  us.  The  world  is  to  be  the  theatre  of  our  labours."  Have  they  not 
sent  far  and  wide  their  missionaries  to  preach  their  doctrines  of  faith  to  the  benighted 
the  world  over  1  What  part  of  the  habitable  globe  is  not,  as  far  as  they  have  had  the 
power,  the  scene  of  their  labours  T  Wherever  man  is  to  be  found,  there  are  these 
soldiers  of  the  cross  to  be  found,  fighting  for  man's  salvation.  Upon  the  great  ocean 
of  human  sin,  they  might  with  almost  literal  truth  exclaim, 

"  Far  as  the  breeze  can  bear  the  billows'  foam, 
Survey  our  empire,  and  behold  our  home." 

An  empire  not  protected  by  the  pirate's  blood-stained  flag,  but  blessed  and  heralded 
by  that  pure  and  holy  banner  which,  bathed  in  the  blood  of  a  Saviour  God,  is  the 
proud  and  hallowed  emblem  of  a  God's  love  and  of  man's  redemption.  To  say  that 
such  a  body  of  men,  with  such  holy  objects  in  view,  fighting  under  a  Leader  who 
knows  neither  colour  nor  clime  in  the  disposition  of  his  providence  under  the  laws 
which  he  thinks  proper  to  impose,  should  have  no  field  of  labour  but  the  limited  field 
embraced  within  the  territorial  compass  of  any  mere  human  government,  is,  I  speak 
it  with  all  deference  to  my  learned  brother,  to  libel  the  Church,  to  disparage  the 
Almighty. 

The  Court  adjourned. 

NINTH  DAY.— THURSDAY,  May  29,  1851. 

MR.  JOHNSON, — May  it  please  your  Honours,  I  continue  the  argument  of  the  first 
point  a  while  longer,  as  to  the  authority  of  the  Conference  to  adopt  the  Plan  of 
Division  of  1844.  My  learned  brothers  on  the  other  side  have  supposed  that  in  the 
constitution  of  this  Conference,  as  it  existed  in  1844,  there  is  to  b'e  found  an  analogy, 
as  far  as  concerns  its  powers,  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  A  word  upon 
that  subject.  The  well  settled  doctrine  in  relation  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is,  that  no  powers  are  conferred  by  it  upon  any  of  the  departments  of  the 
government,  except  such  as  are  expressly  delegated,  or  are  fairly  to  be  implied  from 
those  that  are  so  delegated.  It  is  a  government  of  enumerated  powers  ;  it  came  into 
existence  by  force  of  that  enumeration.  The  body  that  created  it,  or  the  bodies  that 
created  it, — for  although  in  one  sense  it  was  created  by  the  people,  yet  in  another 
sense  it  was  adopted  by  the  States — and  the  States  had  themselves  the  inherent 
sovereign  power  which  belonged  to  separate  and  organized  communities.  Except, 
therefore,  so  far  as  they  communicated  portions  of  such  powers  to  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  the  powers  themselves  still  remained  in  the  communities  by 
whom  the  delegation  was  made.  If  I  was  successful  yesterday,  I  must  have  satisfied 
the  Court  that  the  parties  creating  the  constitution  of  this  Conference  which  assem- 
bled in  1844 — that  is  to  say,  the  parties  constituting  the  Conference  of  1808,  under  the 
authority  of  which  the  particular  Conference  of  1844  was  assembled — were  themselves 
the  entire,  perfect,  absolute  sovereigns  over  the  whole  sphere  of  the  power  belonging 
to  the  Church.  It  is,  therefore,  a  matter  of  construction  whether,  by  the  terms  in 
which  the  constitution  of  that  Conference  was  created,  it  was  the  purpose  of  its 
authors  to  communicate  to  the  government  which  was  to  be  brought  into  existence 
under  that  constitution  all  of  the  powers  with  which  the  constituents  creating  it  were 

22* 


339 

clothed.  But  I  am  not  left  without  authority,  which  must  be  persuasive  on  such  a 
point,  if  it  were  important  to  refer  to  authority  at  all.  I  rely  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Conference  of  1844  itself,  and  of  that  portion  of  the  Conference  of  1844  which 
thought  it  their  duty  in  1848  to  deny  the  authority  of  the  Conference  of  1844  to 
adopt  the  Plan  of  Division  which  was  adopted  in  that  year. 

The  Court  will  remember  that  amongst  other  things,  which  were,  as  I  think,  out- 
rages, although  of  course  not  so  intended,  perpetrated  by  the  Conference  of  1844, 
was  the  quasi  trial,  the  quasi  judgment,  as  it  is  admitted  to  be,  the  quasi  suspension 
of  Bishop  Andrew  from  his  station  as  bishop  in  that  Church,  upon  the  ground  of  some 
alleged  misconduct  on  his  part  prior  to  the  sentence.  The  friends  of  Bishop  An- 
drew, and  Bishop  Andrew  himself,  maintained,  and,  in  my  humble  judgment,  triumph- 
antly maintained  as  a  proposition  of  law,  that  under  the  Discipline  of  the  Church,  as 
it  stood  in  1844,  in  regard  to  the  holding  of  slaves  by  the  bishops  or  other  officers 
of  the  Church,  Bishop  Andrew's  asserted  offence,  which  it  was  admitted  consisted 
only  in  holding  slaves  after  he  had  been  made  bishop,  was  not  an  offence  provided  for 
by  any  law  of  the  Church.  Now,  the  members  of  that  Conference,  who  thought 
differently  in  1844,  and  who  degraded  Bishop  Andrew,  in  justifying  themselves  in  that 
sentence  of  degradation,  pronounced  under  some  general  sweeping  pervading  authority 
which  they  supposed  to  be  vested  in  the  Conference,  over  the  entire  official  and 
private  conduct  of  its  ministers,  state  the  true  doctrine  of  the  powers  of  this  Con- 
ference upon  which  we  rely.  Your  Honours  will  find  it  on  page  116  of  1st  Proofs. 
It  was  the  law  of  the  Church,  said  the  ministers  from  the  South,  that  slaves  might  be 
held  by  the  bishops  as  well  as  the  preachers  living  in  the  South  ;  that  slavery  was  not 
only  tolerated  where  emancipation  was  prohibited,  but  it  was  a  law  of  such  binding 
and  general  operation  as  to  be  equivalent  to  a  constitutional  injunction.  In  the  an- 
swer to  that  ground  assumed  by  the  South,  these  gentlemen  from  the  North,  in  the 
Reply,  which  was  prepared  by  a  committee  of  themselves,  to  the  Protest  made  on 
the  part  of  the  Southern  members  against  the  conduct  of  the  Conference  in  the  case 
of  Bishop  Andrew,  and  which  Reply  was  sanctioned  by  a  vote  of  the  Conference,  tell 
us  (p.  116)  that  the  condition  of  the  Church  with  reference  to  its  powers  is  this  : — 

"  It  is,  indeed,  true,  that  the  question  of  slavery  had  been  long  and  anxiously 
agitated  in  the  Church,  and  the  various  General  Conferences  had  endeavoured  to 
adjust  the  matter  so  as  to  promote  the  greatest  good  of  all  parties  :  but  this  very  fact 
goes  to  disprove  the  position  assumed  in  the  Protest ;  for  as  the  attention  of  the 
Church  had  been  thus  strongly  called  to  the  subject,  if  it  had  been  the  intention  to 
guard  the  question  of  slavery  by  constitutional  provisions,  it  would  have  been  done 
when  the  Church  actually  did  meet  to  frama  a  constitution.  But  nothing  of  the  kind 
appears.  For  when,  in  1808,  it  was  resolved  that  the  General  Conference,  instead 
of  consisting,  as  before,  of  all  the  travelling  elders,  should  be  a  delegated  body,  and 
when  it  was  determined  that  that  body  (unlike  the  general  government,  which  has  no 
powers  but  such  as  are  expressly  conferred)  should  have  all  powers  but  such  as  arc 
expressly  taken  away — when  this  vast  authority  was  about  to  be  given  to  the 
General  Conference,  among  the  limitations  and  restrictions  imposed,  there  is  not  one 
•word  on  the  subject  of  slavery ;  nor  was  any  attempt  made  to  introduce  any  such 
restriction." 

The  clients,  then,  as  if  by  anticipation,  meet  the  argument  of  the  clients'  counsel. 
There  is,  they  say  in  advance,  no  similitude  between  the  two  governments — the 
Church  and  the  national.  The  one  is  a  government  of  delegated  powers,  the  other 
is  a  government  of  vast,  and  sweeping,  and  universal  powers,  over  any  and  every 
subject  connected  with  the  Church,  except  in  the  particulars  in  which  these  vast 
powers  are  pared  down  by  express  qualifications  or  exceptions,  so  as  to  place  them 
in  these  particulars  beyond  the  reach  of  the  Conference.  It  is  true  that  the  writers 


340 

of  this  Reply  were  looking  only  to  the  authority  to  pronounce  the  sentence  against 
Bishop  Andrew  ;  but  it  is  perfectly  immaterial  what  may  have  been  the  object  with 
which  a  reference  to  the  elementary  principles  of  the  constitution  was  made.  If  those 
elementary  principles  are  such  that  all  power  exists,  except  in  the  particulars  in  which 
it  is  expressly  taken  away,  then,  if  there  existed  in  the  preachers,  in  the  constituency 
of  1808,  a  power  to  divide  this  Church,  there  existed  in  the  Conference  created 
by  them  in  1808,  and  under  the  constitution  denning  the  powers  of  the  Conference 
created  in  1808,  a  power  to  divide  as  one  of  the  inherent  powers  of  the  original  body, 
unless  there  is  to  be  found  in  the  constitution  so  created  in  1808,  in  some  one  of  the 
six  restrictive  articles,  a  prohibition  upon  the  exercise  of  that  particular  power  then 
originally  vested  in  the  constituency  of  preachers.  There  is  no  room  for  doubt  on 
the  subject.  It  is  demonstration.  He  who  runs  may  read. 

They  now  deny  that  the  Conference  of  1844  had  a  right,  acting  under  the  constitu- 
tion established  in  1808,  to  divide  this  Church,  upon  the  ground  that  all  power  was 
not  communicated,  although  the  counsel  were  unable  to  deny,  and  have  not  denied, 
that  that  power  existed  in  the  constituency.  They  maintain  that  in  the  particular 
instance  the  power  does  not  exist ;  but  when  they  are  called  upon  to  pass  upon  the 
question  whether  a  Southern  preacher  has  offended  by  becoming  the  holder  of  slaves 
before  or  subsequent  to  his  becoming  a  preacher,  they  assert,  for  the  Conference,  in 
opposition  to  the  law  of  the  Church,  an  authority  to  pronounce  a  sentence  of  degra- 
dation, by  virtue  of  the  authority  of  the  vast,  general,  sweeping,  and  unqualified 
powers  communicated  in  1808. 

What  else  have  this  Conference  of  1844  done  1  I  ask  your  Honours  to  turn  to 
the  resolution  creating  the  committee  of  nine,  p.  98,  to  which  was  referred  the  Decla- 
ration of  the  Southern  members  of  the  Conference,  to  be  found  on  p.  97.  That 
Declaration  was  signed  by  fifty-one  or  fifty-two  delegates  from  Southern  conferences, 
and  a  Mr.  McFerrin  offered  this  resolution  : — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  committee  appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  commu- 
nication of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  conferences,  be  instructed,  provided  they 
cannot,  in  their  judgment,  devise  a  plan  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the  difficulties 
now  existing  in  the  Church,  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  to  devise,  if  possible,  a  consti- 
tutional plan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the  Church." 

They  were  not  to  devise  a  plan  by  which  the  South  might  secede,  and  take  the 
consequence  of  being  secessionists ;  but  some  mode  which  that  Conference  had  a 
constitutional  right  to  adopt  to  effect  a  division  of  the  Church  into  two  Churches, 
each  vested  with  all  the  rights  within  its  territorial  limits  that  belonged  to  the  entire 
Church,  as  it  then  existed  within  the  limits  of  the  entire  Church. 

A  member  from  the  South,  immediately  on  the  offering  of  this  resolution,  Mr. 
Crowder,  from  the  Virginia  Conference,  seeming  to  suppose  that  it  was  possible  that 
no  constitutional  mode  might  be  found  within  the  power  of  the  Conference  in  the 
opinion  of  the  committee,  and  impressed  with  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  division — or, 
what  is  more  likely,  in  order  to  fix  upon  the  Conference  the  expression  of  an  opinion 
that  the  Church,  if  divided  at  all,  was  to  be  divided  constitutionally — proposed  to 
strike  out  the  word  "  constitutional,"  so  as  to  leave  it  read,  "  devise,  if  possible,  a 
plan  for  a  mutual  and  friendly  division  of  the  Church."  The  Northern  gentlemen 
voted  against  the  amendment.  They  wanted  no  secession ;  they  could  not  satisfy 
their  own  consciences  with  the  state  of  things  which  might  be  brought  about,  of 
having  their  brethren  of  the  South  organize  a  Church  which  would  not  be  entitled  to 
all  the  rights  within  its  own  limits,  that  their  portion  of  the  Church  would  be  entitled 
to  within  its  own  limits. 


341 

The  result  of  the  deliberations  of  that  committee  was  the  recommendation  of  the 
Plan  of  the  8th  of  June,  1844,  under  which  the  Church,  South,  has  organized  itself  as 
an  independent  Church.  I  know  that  I  am  right  when  I  say  that  there  was  not  a 
leading  man — and  there  were  many  leaders  of  eminent  ability  on  both  sides — in  this 
Conference  of  1844,  who  whispered  a  doubt,  after  this  very  plan  was  reported,  of  the 
want  of  constitutional  power  in  the  Conference  to  adopt  it.  I  beg  your  Honours  to 
bear  that  in  mind.  Not  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  Church — justly  entitled  to  as  well 
as  enjoying  the  confidence  of  the  Church  upon  every  ground,  personal,  moral,  reli- 
gious and  intellectual — to  whom  the  constitution  of  the  Conference  of  1844  was  as 
familiar  as  the  Bible  of  their  God,  even  suggested,  as  a  doubt  possible  to  be  enter- 
tained, that  there  did  not  exist  in  the  Conference  of  1844  a  power  to  divide  the 
Church  as  proposed  by  that  Plan.  There  may  have  been  expressions  of  opinion  in 
the  annual  conferences  afterwards,  and  there  may  have  been,  in  advance  of  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Conference  of  1848,  in  some  of  the  religious  newspapers  of  this  denomina- 
tion, the  suggestion  of  a  question,  or  the  expression  of  a  positive  opinion  of  the 
absence  of  any  authority  to  adopt  the  Plan  of  1844 ;  but  before  1844,  during  1844, 
and  pending  the  proceedings  which  led  to  the  Plan  of  Separation  in  1844,  in  all  the 
debates  on  that  Plan,  pro  and  con.,  the  existence  of  a  rational  doubt  to  divide  according 
to  that  Plan  was  not  pretended.  That  is  not  all.  It  was  a  part  of  that  Plan  that 
the  third  resolution  incorporated  into  it,  which  looks  to  a  change  of  the  sixth  restric- 
tive article  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  should  be  submitted  to  the  annual  con- 
ferences of  the  Church  generally  ;  and  the  last  resolution  makes  it  the  duty  of  the 
bishops  to  submit  that  particular  part  of  the  Plan  to  the  annual  conferences,  in  order 
to  get  their  sanction  of  the  Plan,  so  far  and  so  far  only. 

Where,  then,  were  these  brethren  of  the  North  1  Behind  no  men  in  the  Church, 
or  out  of  the  Church,  in  worth  and  intelligence — where  were  they  1  I  say  it  with  no 
purpose  of  flattery  ;  for  that,  I  trust,  I  am  incapable  of,  and  they  do  not  require  it,  if  I 
were  capable.  The  proposition  is — I  speak  with  reference  to  both  my  learned  brothers 
on  the  other  side — that  although  there  exists  somewhere  in  the  Church  necessarily 
an  authority  to  divide  itself  into  two  organizations,  yet  that  such  authority  was  not 
vested  in  the  particular  Conference  of  1844.  Where  were  these  gentlemen  of  the 
North,  then,  if  they  entertained  such  an  opinion,  when  they  voted  upon  the  twelfth 
resolution  in  the  Plan,  which  will  be  found  on  p.  131,  and  the  twelfth  resolution  alone, 
which  provides — 

"  That  the  bishops  be  respectfully  requested  to  lay  that  part  of  this  report  requiring 
the  action  of  the  annual  conferences  before  them  as  soon  as  possible,  beginning  with 
the  New-York  Conference." 

What  part  of  it?  If  the  Conference  had  not  the  power  of  itself  to  adopt  the  Plan 
in  that  part  of  it  which  looked  to  a  division  of  the  Church  without  the  consent  of  all 
the  annual  conferences,  then  that  part  of  the  Plan  demanded  the  sanction  of  all  the 
annual  conferences.  Therefore,  these  brethren  virtually  said  :  "  We  wish  not  the 
annual  conferences  to  be  consulted  at  all  upon  the  subject,  except  with  reference  to 
that  part  of  the  Plan  which  by  its  terms  is  made  to  depend  upon  their  sanction" — 
that  part  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  third  resolution,  and  which  looks  to  a  change 
in  the  sixth  restrictive  article.  They  affirm,  then,  that  the  rest  of  the  Plan  can 
stand  on  the  inherent,  and  then  unchallenged  power  to  adopt  it,  vested  in  the  Ge- 
neral Conference.  What  did  the  bishops  do  in  pursuance  of  that  twelfth  resolution  1 
They  issued  their  address  to  the  annual  conferences,  to  which  my  colleague  referred, 
asking  them  to  consider  the  propriety  of  changing  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  and  in 
doing  so  they  state  their  opinion  that  the  entire  Plan  is  obligatory.  I  am  speaking 


342 

now  of  the  question  of  power.  These  five  gentlemen,  clothed  with  every  claim  to 
regard,  as  to  the  law  of  this  Church,  having  presided  at  the  very  deliberations  which 
led  to  the  adoption  of  the  Plan,  announced  to  the  entire  Church  as  their  opinion,  that 
the  Plan  was  constitutionally  binding  in  every  particular,  as  well  in  the  particulars 
in  which  its  binding  operation  was  made  to  depend  on  the  subsequent  assent  of  the 
annual  conferences,  as  in  the  other  particular,  the  division  of  the  Church,  as  to  which 
its  binding  operation  is  merely  to  depend  upon  the  ascertainment  of  the  fact  that  in 
the  judgment  of  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  a  division  was 
necessary.  Where  was  then  the  idea  which  we  have  heard  commented  on  by  the  other 
side,  of  that  unity  of  government  existing  in  1844  which  put  it  out  of  the  power  of 
the  Conference  of  1844  to  divide  itself]  Did  not  that  Conference  know — was  it  not 
engraved  on  the  mind  of  each  of  the  members  constituting  that  Conference — that  the 
Discipline  of  the  Church  inculcated  union  1  Did  they  not  know  that  the  authority 
communicated  to  the  Conference  created  in  1808,  was  an  authority  to  make  "rules 
and  regulations  for  our  Church!"  Did  they  not  know  what  had  been  the  blessings 
of  an  itinerant  superintendency  and  a  travelling  ministry  1  Why,  certainly.  They 
knew,  therefore,  of  the  existence  of  this  supposed  unity,  and  it  never  entered  into 
their  brains  to  conceive  that  there  was  to  be  found  in  such  unity  of  the  Church  a  con- 
stitutional prohibition  upon  the  authorities  of  the  Church  to  create  two  Churches,  with 
reference  to  government,  where  one  only  before  existed.  But  what  is  there  in  this 
idea  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  1  It  is  confounded  in  the  minds  of  my  brothers  on 
the  other  side  with  the  government  of  the  Church.  The  unity  of  one  does  not  depend 
upon  the  existence  of  unity  in  the  other.  Wesleyan  Methodists  are  to  be  found 
wherever  Christianity  is  to  be  found — Methodists  who  now  owe  allegiance  to  this 
body  are  to  be  found  the  world  over.  They  all  constitute  one  Church,  one  Methodist 
Episcopal  Christian  Church  ;  but  they  are  governed  differently,  and  they  inculcate 
the  necessity,  in  order  that  there  may  be  this  one  Church,  of  different  forms  of  govern- 
ment, that  this  one  Methodist  Church  may  accommodate  itself,  as  a  Church,  to  the 
country,  and  the  times,  and  the  circumstances  in  which  it  may  find  itself. 

If  I  satisfied  the  Court  yesterday  that  the  Conference  of  1784  (indeed  there  was 
no  necessity  for  it  on  my  part,  for  the  learned  counsel  admitted  it)  had  the  autho- 
rity to  have  then  organized  two  Churches,  does  it  not  necessarily  follow  that  there  is 
not  to  be  found  in  the  idea  of  Church  unity  any  negative  upon  the  power  to  divide 
itself  into  two  forms  of  government]  That  must  be  very  clear.  Then  would  not 
the  Conference  called  together  in  1784  have  provided  that  there  should  be  two  terri- 
torial organizations  of  Methodists  with  reference  to  government,  within  the  limits  of 
the  United  States,  one  South  and  the  other  North,  if  they  had  anticipated  the  state 
of  things  which  existed  in  1844  ;  if,  looking  to  the  existence  of  this  peculiar  domestic 
institution  to  which  the  South  adheres,  and  which  is  so  obnoxious  to  some  in  the 
North,  they  had  supposed  either  section  of  the  United  States  would  be  liable  to  be 
put  under  the  control  of  the  prejudices  of  the  other  upon  moral  political  administra- 
tive questions]  Why,  certainly  ;  and  yet  there  would  then  have  been  but  one  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  not  two  denominations  preaching  different  doctrines  and 
inculcating  a  different  faith,  but  one  indivisible  united  denomination  of  Christians, 
constituting,  in  the  Methodist  opinion,  the  one  Church,  clothed  with  all  the  sanctity 
of  unity.  If  that  could  have  been  done  in  1784,  according  to  the  same  train  of  rea- 
soning by  which  I  tried  to  conduct  the  Court  to  the  conclusion  to  which  I  invited 
them  yesterday,  it  could  equally  have  been  done  by  the  Conference  of  1792,  or  either 
of  the  succeeding  conferences,  including  the  Conference  of  1808,  which  created  the 
Conference  which,  in  1844,  adopted  the  Plan  of  Division  of  June,  1844. 

Our  brothers,  and  their  clients,  discovered  only  about  1848 — they  had,  as  is  obvi- 


343 

ous,  acted  upon  a  different  notion  altogether  before- — that  although  what  had  been 
done  in  the  case  of  the  Canada  division  established  the  existence  of  the  power  to 
divide,  there  was  to  be  found  in  the  circumstances  of  the  Canadian  connexion  with 
the  American  Church  something  which  distinguished  the  American  and  Canadian 
Churches  in  their  connexion  from  the  connexion  which  subsisted  between  the 
Southern  and  Northern  Methodists  as  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States.  My  friends  find  in  that  case  a  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  their 
argument  against  the  existence  of  the  power  in  question.  They  have  told  your 
Honours  that  the  connexion  between  the  American  and  the  Canadian  Churches  was  a 
mere  league,  existing  by  force  of  a  mere  treaty,  not  bringing  about,  as  between  the 
Canada  Conference  and  the  American  Church,  one  united  and  indivisible  Church, 
but  one  which  existed  not  by  force  of  any  governmental  existence,  not  by  virtue  of 
any  constitutional  existence,  but  by  virtue  of  some  supposed,  undefined,  unintelligi- 
ble agreement,  resulting  in  a  peculiar  and  undefinable  relationship  between  the  two. 
May  it  please  the  Court,  we  have  had,  as  we  all  know,  various  theories  about  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  the  different  schools  of  our  statesmen.  The 
one  have  considered  it  as  flowing  immediately  from  the  people,  and  not  as  consti- 
tuting a  compact  between  the  States,  and  existing  only  by  force  of  that  compact, 
and  remaining  only  in  existence  as  long  as  each  one  of  the  contracting  parties 
thought  proper  to  permit.  The  difference  between  the  two  schools  is  now  threaten- 
ed to  be  put  in  practical  operation.  South  Carolina  now  announces  the  rule  of 
constitutional  law  to  be,  very  many  hi  the  South  out  of  South  Carolina  announce 
the  rule  of  constitutional  law  to  be,  that  there  is  no  government,  in  the  sense  in 
which  I  am  sure  this  Court  believe  there  is  a  government,  created  by  force  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States,  but  that  the  States  are  bound  solely  together  by 
virtue  of  a  league,  a  treaty,  to  be  found  in  the  assent  upon  the  part  of  each  one  of 
the  States,  that  as  between  itself  and  all  the  other  States  it  agrees  to  constitute  a 
portion  of  the  Union,  and  that  it  has  a  right  therefore  to  march  out  of  that  Union, 
to  put  an  end  to  the  agreement ;  and  this  is  threatened  to  be  done.  In  the  days  of 
nullification,  when  the  right  to  secede  was  claimed  upon  a  different  ground  from  that 
which  now  occasions  its  assertion,  the  exercise  by  congress  of  its  authority  to  lay 
imposts  and  duties,  the  same  doctrine  was,  in  substance,  announced.  Your  Honours, 
I  am  sure,  are  familiar  with  the  paper,  but  if  you  desire  to  refresh  your  recollections 
turn,  before  you  decide  upon  this  question,  to  the  memorable  proclamation  of  Presi- 
dent Jackson,  draughted,  as  is  well  known,  by  the  then  secretary  of  state,  Mr. 
Livingston,  in  which  he  meets  the  question  as  to  the  consequences  to  result  from  the 
binding  operation  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  whether  that  constitution 
be  considered  as  emanating  from  the  people  directly,  or  as  having  been  the  creature 
of  a  compact  between  each  State  and  her  sister  States.  The  argument  is  this :  that 
it  made  no  possible  difference  whether  it  came  into  existence  by  virtue  of  the  act  of 
the  people  individually,  or  by  virtue  of  a  compact  between  the  States.  The  question 
still  was,  What  were  the  powers  of  the  government  which  was  brought  into  existence ! 
Were  they  such  powers  as  demanded  for  then:  execution,  for  their  preservation,  for 
the  maintenance  of  the  government  so  created,  that  each  State  of  the  Union  should 
be  held  to  be,  during  all  time,  a  portion  of  the  government  of  the  Union,  controlled 
by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  1  There  was  no  unprejudiced  man  in  the 
United  States  who  doubted  then  upon  the  question. 

Now,  let  us  apply  to  the  supposed  distinction  between  the  Canadian  case  and  the 
case  which  existed  in  1844  the  doctrine  of  that  proclamation.  The  Canadian  Con- 
ference existed  before  they  were  introduced  into  the  American  Church.  Suppose  it 
did.  What  was  its  condition  after  it  was  introduced  1  How  was  it  introduced  ? 


344 

What  was  the  consequence  of  its  introduction  1  It  was  introduced  as  an  annual  con- 
ference, sent  its  delegates  to  the  General  Conference ;  it  became,  analogically  speak- 
ing, one  of  the  States  of  this  political  hierarchy,  and  bound  by  all  the  obligations, 
and  responsible  to  all  the  duties  which  the  rest  of  the  Church  were  bound  by  or 
responsible  to.  My  brother  who  spoke  first  on  the  other  side,  said,  that  in  the  nature 
of  things  there  must  have  been  a  territorial  limit  to  the  American  Church,  because  it 
had  no  authority  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  the  United  States.  Why  not  ?  Does 
the  Gospel  of  Christ  know  any  territorial  limits'!  Is  the  religion  of  our  Saviour 
bound  by  any  geographical  lines]  I  beg  pardon  for  putting  any  such  inquiries. 
There  may  be,  in  the  particular,  local,  political  governments  of  some  countries,  im- 
pediments which  prevent  it  from  getting  within  the  limits  of  such  territories ;  but 
when  there  are  no  such  territorial  obstacles  in  peculiar  territorial  governments,  the 
world  is  before  it,  not  where  to  choose,  but  where,  from  its  high  and  holy  calling,  it 
is  obliged  to  go.  What  says  the  Discipline  1  In  the  History  of  the  Discipline,  page 
110,  we  find  the  following  note  to  the  23d  article  of  religion : — 

"  As  far  as  it  respects  civil  affairs,  we  believe  it  the  duty  of  Christians,  and  espe- 
cially all  Christian  ministers,  to  be  subject  to  the  supreme  authority  of  the  country 
where  they  may  reside,  and  to  use  all  laudable  means  to  enjoin  obedience  to  the 
powers  that  be;  and  therefore  it  is  expected  that  all  our  preachers  and  people,  who 
may  be  under  the  British  or  any  other  government,  will  behave  themselves  as  peace- 
able and  orderly  subjects." 

It  would  have  been  well  for  the  preachers  of  the  North,  who  were  parties  to  the 
proceedings  which  resulted  in  the  separation  of  1844,  to  remember  that  it  was  ex- 
pected of  them  that  they  should  behave  themselves  as  peaceable  and  orderly 
citizens. 

"  This  note  was  added  especially  to  meet  the  peculiar  case  of  the  brethren  in  Ca- 
nada, against  whom  unfounded  suspicions  had  been  created,  because  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  of  which  they  were  then  a  part,  was  regarded  as  a  foreign  eccle- 
siastical authority." 

The  Canadian  Church  was  separated  in  1828.  The  question  is,  What  were  its* 
obligations,  and  duties,  and  rights  when  it  was  in  1  Did  they  claim,  as  South  Carolina 
now  does,  to  secede  by  virtue  of  any  independent  authority  of  their  own,  or  by  vir- 
tue of  any  reserved  right,  or  inherent  right  growing  out  of  the  particular  character 
of  the  constitution  which  brought  them  into  the  American  Church  1 

Turning  to  pp.  32  and  33  Proofs  No.  1,  I  find  a  petition  "  to  the  bishops  and  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  from  the  "  Ca- 
nada Annual  Conference,"  one  of  the  conferences  constituting  the  Church,  and 
sending  delegates  to  the  General  Conference : — 

"  The  Canada  Conference  having,  after  mature  deliberation,  deemed  a  separation 
expedient,  most  humbly  pray  that  they  may  be  set  off  a  separate  and  independent 
Church  in  Canada." 

"  Set  off,"  by  whoml  According  to  the  learned  counsel  on  the  other  side,  it  was 
only  for  them  to  say  that  they  willed  it,  and  they  could  go  off;  it  was  only  for  them 
to  say  they  would  establish  for  themselves  a  separate  Church  organization,  and 
it  was  done.  That  is  not  the  view  they  took  of  it.  They  then  go  on  to  give  the 
reasons  why  they  ask  the  General  Conference  to  set  them  off  a  separate  and  inde- 
pendent Church.  They  are : — 

"  1st.  Our  political  relations,  and  the  political  feelings  of  a  great  part  of  the  com- 
munity, are  such  that  we  labour  under  many  very  serious  embarrassments  on  account 


345 

of  our  union  with  the  United  States,  from  which  embarrassments  we  would,  in  aH 
probability,  be  relieved  by  a  separation. 

"  2d.  The  local  circumstances  of  our  societies  in  this  Province ;  the  rapid  increase 
and  extension  of  the  work,  both  among  the  white  inhabitants  and  the  Indians  ;  the 
prospects  of  division  among  ourselves,  if  our  present  relation  be  continued,  render  it 
necessary  for  us  to  be  under  ecclesiastical  regulations  somewhat  of  a  peculiar  char- 
acter, so  as  to  suit  our  local  circumstances. 

"  3d.  It  is  highly  probable  that  we  shall  obtain  some  important  religious  privileges 
by  becoming  a  separate  body. 

"  4th.  In  the  event  of  a  war  between  the  two  nations,  it  would  be  altogether  im- 
practicable for  a  superintendent  to  discharge  the  duties  of  his  office  unless  he  be  resi- 
dent in  this  Province. 

"  5th.  It  is  the  general  wish  of  our  people  in  this  Province  to  become  separate ; 
nor  will  they,  according  to  present  appearances,  be  satisfied  without  sack  sepa- 
ration." 

Now  let  us  see  what  was  proposed  to  be  done,  and  then  what  was  done.  On 
page  34  I  find  that  the  committee  to  whom  this  matter  was  referred,  report ; — 

"  The  committee  are  unanimously  of  the  opinion,  that,  however  peculiar  may  be 
the  situation  of  our  brethren  in  Canada,  and  however  much  we  may  sympathize  with 
them  in  their  present  state  of  perplexity,  this  General  Conference  cannot  consistent- 
ly grant  them  a  separate  Church  establishment,  according  to  the  prayer  of  the  peti- 
tioners." 

Why  not  ?  If  the  theory  now  relied  upon  be  correct,  the  relationship  had  existed 
by  means  of  a  treaty  ;  the  contracting  parties  were  the  American  Church  on  the  one 
side  and  the  Canadian  Church  upon  the  other ;  they  existed  as  one,  simply  because  of 
the  operation  and  authority  of  that  treaty.  If,  as  my  learned  brother^,  who-  spoke  first 
on  the  other  side,  and  to  whom  I  am  particularly  replying,  supposed^  the  connexion, 
between  the  Canada  Church  and  the  American  Church  was  only  by  treaty r  and  was 
like  a  treaty  between  the  United  States  and  any  foreign  power;  that  it  could  be  divi- 
ded by  a  treaty  to  which  each  of  the  original  contracting  parties  agreed — if  this  be  so, 
I  ask  how  it  is  possible  that  a  unanimous  opinion  could  be  entertained  that  there  was  no 
authority  to  grant  the  prayer  of  this  petition  1  What  doubt  could  there  have  been  on  the 
subject,  if  Canada  was  a  contracting  party  to  a  treaty  and  desired  to/  go,  and  the 
American  Church,  the  only  other  party,  was  willing  to  let  her  go  1  Why,  it  would 
be  a  singular  sort  of  treaty  which  the  parties  themselves  could  not  get  rid!  of.  If  the 
theory  of  our  friends  is  well  founded,  it  is  a  species  of  domestic  economy  that  would 
prove  very  beneficial  to  a  certain  class  of  citizens,  even  perhaps  members,  of  the  bar* 
not  to  speak  of  others,  which  brings  into  possession  property  which  they  could  not 
get  rid  of.  This  committee  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion,  that  as  things  then 
were  there  was  no  authority  to  organize  a  separate  organization  of  the  Canadian 
Church.  Let  us  see  if  they  believed  in  the  theory  now  taken,  that  the  connexion 
was  the  result  of  a  treaty  between  these  two  original  parties  which  either  would  be 
at  liberty  to  dissolve.  The  committee  says  : — 

"  The  committee,  therefore,  recommend  to  the  General  Conference." 
What] 

"  That  inasmuch  as  the  several  annual  conferences  have  not  recommended  it  to  the 
General  Conference,  it  is  unconstitutional." 

Then  if  they  had  recommended  it,  it  would  have  been  constitutional.  They  want 
a  change  of  government,  not  the  authority  to  dissolve  a  league.  Considering  that 
the  power  existed  in  the  constituents  of  the  General  Conference,  the  annual  confer- 


346 

cnces,  they  wish  first  to  have  a  vote  of  the  annual  conferences  consenting  to  the 
separation,  and  then  they  say  the  General  Conference  could  authorize  the  establish- 
ment of  a  separate  Church  in  Canada ;  then,  instead  of  being  unconstitutional,  it 
would  be  plainly  constitutional.  This  is  somewhat  inconsistent  with  the  idea,  relied 
on  by  my  friends  on  the  other  side  with  so  much  ability,  that  there  was  something 
peculiar  in  the  relationship  between  the  Canadian  Church  and  the  American  Church. 
Now  what  did  they  do  1  Their  sympathies  ran  so  high,  and  they  regretted  so  much 
the  perplexity  of  their  Canadian  brethren,  that  they  suffered  the  Canadian  brethren 
to  establish  a  separate  Church,  and  that  by  an  almost  unanimous  vote.  How  do 
they  do  it  1  On  p.  37,  we  find  it  resolved — 

"  That,  whereas  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  has  heretofore  been  extended  over  the  ministers  and  members  in 
connexion  with  said  Church  in  the  Province  of  Upper  Canada,  by  mutual  agreement, 
and  by  the  consent  and  desire  of  our  brethren  in  that  Province ;  and  whereas  this 
General  Conference  is  satisfactorily  assured  that  our  brethren  in  the  said  Province, 
under  peculiar  and  pressing  circumstances,  do  now  desire  to  organize  themselves 
into  a  distinct  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  friendly  relations  with  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  therefore  be  it  resolved,  and  it  is  hereby  re- 
solved, by  the  delegates  of  the  annual  conferences  in  General  Conference  assembled: — 

"  That  if  the  annual  conferences  in  Upper  Canada,  at  its  ensuing  session,  or  any 
succeeding  session  previously  to  the  next  General  Conference,  shall  definitely  determine 
on  this  course,  and  elect  a  general  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  that  Province,  this  General  Conference  do  hereby  authorize  any  one  or  more  of 
the  general  superintendents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States, 
with  the  assistance  of  any  two  or  more  elders,  to  ordain  such  general  superintendent 
for  the  said  Church  in  Upper  Canada,"  &c. 

That  was  done.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  be  hypercritical  in  the  consideration  of 
the  terms  on  which  it  was  done.  There  was  a  jurisdiction  existing,  whether  by 
agreement  or  not  is  not  material.  It  all  exists  by  agreement.  These  annual  con- 
ferences come  under  the  General  Conference  by  agreement ;  there  is  no  political 
power,  no  ecclesiastical  power  by  which  they  can  be  brought  in  against  their  own 
consent,  or  kept  in  against  their  own  will.  The  Church  lives  in  every  member  of 
it  by  agreement,  but  still  it  lives  as  a  Church,  governed  by  its  peculiar  form  of  gov- 
ernment as  long  as  it  does  live.  The  Canada  case  is  exactly  a  case  in  point.  The 
power  exerted  was  the  same.  The  necessity  in  one  sense  for  the  exercise  of  the 
power  was  the  same.  The  manner  in  which  it  was  exercised  was  substantially  the 
same.  And  from  1828,  when  that  power  was  exercised,  up  to  the  time  when  your  Hon- 
ours have  been  called  upon  to  hear  this  cause,  or  up  to  a  period  comparatively  recent, 
nobody  whispered  the  existence  of  a  rational  doubt  of  the  power  of  the  General  Con- 
ference to  divide  itself  into  as  many  separate  and  distinct  Churches  as  in  their  judg- 
ment the  good  of  the  Church  demanded ;  as  far  as  I  am  advised,  no  one  of  the 
annual  conferences  which  was  called  upon  to  decide  under  the  third  resolution  of  the 
Plan  of  Division,  whether  they  would  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  ever,  by  vote  or  declaration,  denied  the  constitutionality  of 
the  division.  I  beg  your  Honours  to  bear  that  in  mind.  Whether  there  were 
expressions  of  individual  opinion  was  another  matter ;  but  no  vote  was  taken,  no  pro- 
position was  suggested,  looking  to  any  distant  and  definitive  action  upon  the  part  of 
any  one  of  the  annual  conferences,  North  or  South,  against  the  constitutional  power 
of  the  Conference  of  1844  to  adopt  the  Plan  of  Division  of  1844. 

That  is  not  all.  These  gentlemen,  now  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  North,  have  fallen  very  far  short  of  their  duty,  if  the  theory  upon  which 
they  are  now  acting  be  a  sound  one.  They  are  responsible  to  the  Church,  and,  what 


347 

is  still  more,  to  their  God,  for  a  very  lame  and  imperfect  performance  of  their  duties. 
They  say  that  the  division  authorized  and  organized  under  the  Plan  of  1844  was  un- 
constitutional. In  the  Conference  of  1848,  at  Pittsburgh,  they  said  it  was  brought 
about  by  the  act  of  the  Southern  members  without  cause.  They  say,  through  their 
counsel  now,  in  the  presence  of  your  Honours,  that  these  Southern  members  are 
all  secessionists.  Gentlemen,  do  you  believe  it  1  Gentlemen  defendants,  do  you 
conscientiously  believe  it  1  Of  course,  they  must  say  "Yes."  Then  march  up  to 
the  duty  which  is  upon  you.  It  was  a  part  of  that  Plan,  as  the  Court  will  see  on 
pp.  130  and  131,  not  dependant  in  any  way  on  the  assent  of  any  annual  conferences, 
except  the  assent  of  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  to  the  first 
resolution, 

"  That  all  the  property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  meeting-houses, 
parsonages,  colleges,  schools,  conference  funds,  cemeteries,  and  of  every  kind  within 
the  limits  of  the  Southern  organization,  shall  be  forever  free  from  any  claim  set  up 
on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  so  far  as  this  resolution  can  be  of 
force  in  the  premises." 

Now  if  the  Plan  is  unconstitutional,  go  and  take  this  property.  Do  not  tell  me  that 
there  is  to  be  found  in  the  prejudices  of  the  Southern  tribunals  an  obstacle  to  success. 
The  tribunals  of  the  United  States  are  open ;  they  are  raised  above  the  level  of  any 
possible  supposed  local  prejudices — standing  upon  a  more  elevated  platform,  looking 
over  the  whole  country,  and  bound  to  free  themselves  from  the  existence  of  anything 
like  sectional  or  other  prejudice  or  partiality.  Go  into  the  courts  of  the  United 
States.  The  property  here  referred  to  is  worth  millions.  Get  back  the  meeting-houses, 
the  parsonages,  the  colleges,  the  schools,  the  conference  funds,  the  cemeteries,  within 
the  limits  of  the  Southern  Church.  The  men  who  hold  them  are  no  part  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  They  are  mere  wrong  doers.  Do  not  content  your- 
selves with  keeping  merely  the  money  which  happens  to  be  located  at  theNorth ;  do  not 
satisfy  yourselves  with  refusing  to  dole  out  the  miserable  pittance  which  has  heretofore 
supported  the  wants  of  the  aged,  and  infirm,  and  supernumerary  preachers,  and  their 
families,  in  the  South ;  do  not  keep  that  for  your  own  preachers,  your  own  wives, 
and  your  own  children  ;  but  if  you  are  right,  get  back  this  vast  amount  of  property, 
devote  it  to  the  cause  of  your  Church  to  which  these  Southern  separatists  have  no 
title  to  belong.  These  Southern  schismatics,  with,  as  you  pretend  to  believe,  the 
branding  degradation  of  slavery  upon  their  brow,  have  no  right  to  it ; — put  it  in  the 
hands  of  pure  Christian  men — men  who  are  sufficiently  pure  and  Christian  to  carry 
God's  tidings  of  salvation  everywhere,  and  administer  the  sacraments  of  his  love  to 
all ;  do  not  leave  it  in  the  hands  of  these  lost  Southern  men.  But  they  have  not 
done  this.  Why  not  1  Can  any  reason  be  given,  except  a  conviction  that  the  pro- 
perty belongs  to  the  South  1  Can  any  reason  be  given  consistent  with  their  duty, 
except  a  conviction  that  it  was  made  the  property  of  the  South  by  force  of  this  very 
separate  organization  of  the  Southern  Church,  under  the  authority  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation  of  1844 1  There  have,  it  is  true,  been  some  adventurous  spirits  who 
have  screwed  themselves  up  to  the  sticking  point  of  maintaining  that  the  Plan  being 
unconstitutional  and  void,  fell  in  all  its  particulars  to  the  ground,  and  that  the 
Church  and  its  property,  everywhere,  stands  as  it  stood  before  the  Plan  of  1844  was 
adopted. 

Your  Honours  have  been  referred  to  one  case,  where  a  gentleman  named  Arm- 
strong, claiming  to  have  been  a  large  contributor  to  a  meeting-house  in  Maysville, 
Kentucky,  with  some  followers,  conscientious,  I  have  no  doubt — God  forbid  that  I 
should  doubt  that  they  were  influenced  by  proper  motives— contested  the  right  of  the 


348 

'Southern  Church  to  that  meeting-house,  upon  the  very  ground  of  the  absolute  nullity 
of  the  Han  of  Separation,  and  the  absolute  nullity  consequently  of  the  title  to  the 
meeting-house  which  was  dependant  upon  that  plan. 

The  case  was  first  taken  before  a  single  judge  vested  with  chancery  jurisdiction, 
and  he  came  to  the  conclusion,  that,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  particular  case, 
and  by  force  of  the  provisions  of  a  Kentucky  statute  of  general  operation,  applying, 
as  he  considered,  to  the  case,  the  equitable  mode  of  disposing  of  the  property  would 
be  to  give  the  use  of  the  house  one  week,  or  one  Sunday,  to  one  branch,  and  the  next 
week,  or  the  next  Sunday,  to  the  other  branch.  The  case  was  carried  up  to  the  Court 
of  Appeals  of  Kentucky.  I  commend  your  Honours  to  that  decision,  as  delivered  by 
Mr.  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  which  throughout  he  deems  it  to  be  too  clear  for 
doubt,  (speaking  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  the  Court,)  that  the  Conference  of  1844 
had  the  constitutional  right  to  adopt  the  Plan  of  division  of  that  year,  and  that  by 
force  of  that  division  the  entire  title  to  this  property  was  vested  in  the  Southerly  or- 
ganized Church.  They,  the  North,  tried  the  question  once,  through  Mr.  Armstrong, 
and  they  tried  it  in  vain.  Now,  all  is  acquiesced  in.  The  South  stands  upon  the 
•title  to  ail  the  property  of  which  it  is  now  in  the  actual  enjoyment,  by  virtue  of  the 
constitutionality  of  the  division  authorized  by  the  Plan  of  1844 — in  virtue  of  that  con- 
stitutional title,  and  none  other.  I  beg  your  Honours  to  remember  that.  They 
stand,  toe,  upon  the  authority  of  the  Conference,  which  established  a  like  separate 
organization  for  what  was  before  an  integral  portion  of  the  Church,  in  the  Canada 
•case.  Tfeey  stand  upon  the  recorded  opinions  of  almost  every  member  of  the  Con- 
ference .of  1844,  that  that  Conference  had  the  authority  to  sanction  the  division. 
They  stand  upon  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  bishops,  the  executive  heads  of  the 
Church,  that  the  Conference  had  the  authority  to  adopt  it.  They  stand  upon  the 
opinions  «f  the  entire  Conference  of  1844,  as  far  as  we  can  find  their  opinions  from 
their  votes,  that  the  Conference  had  the  constitutional  authority  to  adopt  it.  They 
are,  therefore,  covered  all  over  with  the  sanctions  which  title  can  derive  from  pre- 
cedent, frem  the  judicial,  legislative,  and  executive  authority  of  this  Church,  and 
from  the  eapress  adjudication  of  a  court  of  last  resort,  not  surpassed  by  any  court  in 
the  Union,  in  all  the  qualities  which  give  a  tribunal  claims  to  respect.  They  stand, 
above  all  and  higher  than  all,  upon  the  character,  the  holy  character  of  that  Power 
above  from  which  the  entire  authority  of  the  Church  is  derived ;  upon  the  charter 
which  he  gives  to  his  Church  to  go  throughout  the  world,  and,  accommodating  itself 
to  the  wants,  and  the  peculiarities,  and  the  times  in  which  his  ministers  may  find 
themselves,  to  carry  his  word  and  to  proclaim  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation  to  all. 
Lest  I  might  forget  the  very  words  in  which  this  mighty  power  is  communicated — 
•which,  I  need  not  tell  this  Court,  should  never  be  done  with  any  language  which 
flows  from  so  sacred  and  so  revered  a  source — let  me  read  to  your  Honours  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  the  higher,  holier  constitution  of  the  Church,  as  given  by 
God  himself  to  the  apostles,  the  first  travelling  preachers  in  his  service.  He  tells 
them,  Matthew  xxviii,  18-20  : — 

"  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach 
all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ;  and 
lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

"All  nations."  There  are  no  territorial  restrictions  upon  your  authority,  gentlemen 
travelling  preachers  of  this  Church.  Your  constituent  is  the  Maker  of  the  universe, 
under  whom  and  for  whom  you  act.  He  knows  no  local  distinctions  which  we  poor 
frail  beings  know ;  and  knowing,  because  we  are  frail  often  do  the  greatest  injustice 


349 

in  consequence  of  the  knowledge.  He  wishes  all  brought  to  salvation  :  the  master 
to  be  enlightened,  the  slave  to  be  enlightened  ;  the  master  to  be  saved,  the  slave  to 
be  saved.  You  libel  the  memory 'of  the  Author  of  your  Church,  you  trample  upon 
the  constitution  of  that  Church  as  derived  from  God,  whom  you  are  bound  to  adore,  if 
you  bring  into  the  administration  of  the  duties  which  he  imposes  upon  you,  any  test 
which  deprives  you  of  the  authority  to  preach  to  the  master  and  to  the  slave.  I  have 
done  with  the  first  point. 

The  duty  which  is  before  me  in  the  consideration  of  the  next  three  points,  is  com- 
paratively an  unimportant  one.  But  before  I  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the 
second  point  of  my  argument,  although  I  feel  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  the  decision 
of  this  case,  it  is  due  to  those  that  I  represent,  that  I  should  say  a  few  words  upon 
what  they  believe  to  have  been  the  necessity  of  asking  for  a  separate  organization  of 
this  Church.  I  shall  be  comparatively  short,  the  whole  subject  having  been  so  clearly 
and  perspicuously  presented  by  my  colleague. 

The  agitation  of  slavery  in  the  quarterly  conferences,  in  the  annual  conferences,  in 
the  General  Conference,  the  judgment  against  preacher  Harding,  the  judgment  in  the 
case  of  Bishop  Andrew,  both  of  them  in  the  Conference  of  1844,  brought  about,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  delegates  from  the  Southern  conferences  in  the  first  place,  and  after- 
wards in  the  opinion  of  the  Southern  conferences,  a  conviction  that  the  Church  itself, 
in  order  to  be  saved,  must  exist  under  separate  and  distinct  organizations  at  the  South 
and  at  the  North.  My  learned  brother  who  spoke  first  on  the  other  side,  ingeniously 
endeavoured  to  maintain  that,  of  the  three  reasons  which  were  assigned,  in  what  is 
termed  the  Declaration  of  the  members  from  the  South  in  this  Conference,  for  desiring 
a  separate  Church  organization,  two  of  them  were  afterwards  abandoned,  and  the 
other,  to  make  the  most  of  it,  was  a  mere  erroneous  judgment  of  the  Conference  upon 
a  question  over  which  they  had  clear  jurisdiction.  Let  me,  in  this  connexion,  refer 
to  what  is  the  fact  in  relation  to  this  matter.  In  1844,  not  only  was  a  division  au- 
thorized by  the  General  Conference,  if  the  power  existed,  as  in  this  branch  of  the 
argument  I  assume,  but  it  was  demanded  for  the  safety  of  the  Church.  In  the  Ca- 
nada case,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  it,  your  Honours  will  find,  on  p.  44  of 
Proofs  No.  1,  that  it  is  asserted  that  a  division  was  to  be  made,  when  division  was 
necessary  to  save  the  Church  ;  that  is,  to  save  the  Church  there — there  in  the  par- 
ticular locality — not  to  save  it  elsewhere  where  the  exigency  does  not  exist.  When 
a  state  of  things  exists  which  endangers  the  usefulness  of  the  Church,  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church  is,  divide,  in  order  to  save.  Now,  in  the  first  place,  the  Declaration 
of  the  Southern  delegates,  in  1844,  on  p.  97,  states  the  necessity  of  a  division  to 
save  the  Church.  In  the  second  place,  the  universal  opinion  of  the  Southern  dele- 
gates was,  that  a  division  was  necessary  to  save  the  Church.  3d.  The  conduct  of  the 
Conference  in  Harding's  and  in  Andrew's  cases  proved  the  necessity  of  a  division 
in  order  to  save  the  Church.  4th.  The  doctrines  avowed  by  the  Northern  members  of 
the  Church  in  the  Conference  of  1844;  in  the  Answer  to  the  Protest  of  Southern 
members  against  the  judgment  in  the  case  of  Andrew,  proved,  beyond  all  doubt,  the 
necessity  of  a  division  to  save  the  Church — it  being  always  understood  that  I  mean 
to  save  the  Church  in  the  South.  5th.  The  opinion  of  each  one  of  the  annual  con- 
ferences of  the  South  was,  that  a  division  was  required  in  order  to  save  the  Church. 
6th.  The  certain  consequences,  not  relying  on  opinions  as  the  only  evidence,  of  the 
tendency  of  the  acts  of  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  from  the  North,  must 
have  been,  in  the  judgment  of  all  sane  men,  the  production  of  a  state  of  things  hi  the 
South,  that  would  render  a  division  of  the  Church  absolutely  imperative,  in  order  to 
save  the  Church  hi  the  South.  This-was  the  opinion  of  the  bishops  of  this  Church 
as  to  the  consequence  of  this  slavery  agitation,  to  be  found  in  their  address,  upon 


p.  68,  and  in  their  answer  to  the  British  Conference,  pp.  64-66  ;  and  the  opinion  of 
the  individual  bishops,  given  in  their  collective  capacity,  in  advance  of  the  judgment 
on  the  case  of  Andrew,  in  their  address  to  the  Conference,  by  whom,  almost  imme- 
diately afterwards,  that  judgment  was  pronounced,  as  well  as  in  the  debate  before 
the  judgment,  which  your  Honours  will  find  on  pages  88-91. 

Finally  :  the  opinion  of  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  as  set  forth  in  their  pre- 
amble to  the  Plan  of  Separation,  established  the  existence  of  the  necessity  to  divide 
this  Church,  in  order  to  save  it  in  the  South. 

I  have  not  time,  nor  would  it  be  right,  to  trespass  upon  the  kindness  of  the  Court, 
already  so  indulgently  extended  to  me,  to  read  the  particular  evidence  on  either  of 
these  points ;  but  the  Court  will  pardon  me,  for  reading  a  sentence  or  two  from  the 
address  of  the  bishops,  pp.  58-60 — cool,  unimpassioned  men,  not  acting  under  the 
influence  of  the  local  agitation  to  which  this  Church  was  subject,  but  whose  very 
functions  of  general  superintendency,  freed  them  from  the  prejudices  which  some- 
times arise  from  mere  local  opinions.  The  address  to  which  I  refer  is  the  address 
to  the  General  Conference  of  1840.  They  say  in  that  address  : — 

"  At  the  last  session  of  the  General  Conference  the  subject  of  slavery  and  its  abo- 
lition was  extensively  discussed,  and  vigorous  exertions  made  to  effect  new  legisla- 
tion upon  it.  But  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  whole  ground,  aided  by  the  light 
of  past  experience,  it  was  the  solemn  conviction  of  the  Conference  that  the  interests  of 
religion  would  not  be  advanced  by  any  additional  enactments  in  regard  to  it." 

They  had  gone  far  enough  ;  a  step  further  might  be  rubious.  They  then  say  that 
they  advised  the  subject  to  be  dropped  everywhere.  On  page  59,  after  stating  that 
the  opinion  of  the  Conference  was  generally  acquiesced  in,  they  go  on  : — 

"  But  we  regret  that  we  are  compelled  to  say,  that  in  some  of  the  northern  and 
eastern  conferences,  in  contravention  of  your  Christian  and  pastoral  counsel,  and  of 
your  best  efforts  to  carry  it  into  effect,  the  subject  has  been  agitated  in  such  forms, 
and  in  such  a  spirit,  as  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church.  This  unhappy  agitation 
has  not  been  confined  to  the  annual  conferences,  but  has  been  introduced  into  quar- 
terly conferences,  and  made  the  absorbing  business  of  self-created  bodies  in  the 
bosom  of  our  beloved  Zion.  The  professed  object  of  all  these  operations  " — 

Of  course  it  was  the  professed  object,  and  I  hope  the  sincere  object.  Fanatical 
error  is  always  sincere.  When  it  ceases  to  be  sincere  it  becomes  corruption,  and  no 
man  can  imagine  that  in  the  Church. 

"  The  professed  object  of  all  these  operations  is  to  free  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  from  the  '  great  moral  evil  of  slavery,'  and  to  secure  to  the  enslaved  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  free  citizens  of  these  United  States.  How  far  the  measures 
adopted,  and  the  manner  of  applying  those  measures,  are  calculated  to  accomplish 
such  an  issue,  even  if  it  could  be  effected  by  any  action  of  ecclesiastical  bodies,  your 
united  wisdom  will  enable  you  to  judge." 

If  these  gentlemen  could  only  wake  up  to  the  condition  of  things  which  they  have 
brought  about  in  the  Southern  States,  they  would  find  that,  for  every  rivet  they  have 
loosened,  they  have  added  tens  and  hundreds  and  thousands  of  rivets  to  this  very 
condition  of  slavery.  One  of  the  members  who  figured  in  the  Conference  of  1840 
and  1844,  and  was  one  of  the  leaders  in  the  proceedings  against  preacher  Harding, 
and  also  took  a  conspicuous  part  against  Bishop  Andrew,  has  for  the  last  six  or  seven 
months  been  serving  as  chaplain  to  a  convention  in  Maryland,  whose  very  first 
step — a  step  which  never  would  have  been  taken  but  for  the  agitation  in  the  Church 
and  out  of  the  Church  on  this  question  of  slavery — and  the  only  measure  I  think 
upon  which  they  were  unanimous,  was  to  provide  as  part  of  the  organic  constitutional 
law  of  Maryland,  that  manumission  should  not  be  brought  about  by  any  legislative 


351 

provision.  Maryland,  in  the  advance  of  the  philanthropic  movement,  which  I  would 
have  it  understood  did  not  begin  at  the  North,  but  at  the  South,  for  putting  an  end 
to  human  bondage  as  far  back  as  1790,  opened  wide  the  doors  to  emancipation.  But 
by  the  agitation  in  this  Church  and  out  of  it,  in  other  Churches,  in  the  Presbyterian 
and  Baptist  Churches,  a  condition  of  things  was  brought  about  as  far  back  as  1836, 
which  caused  the  legislature  of  Maryland,  then  invested  with  the  right  of  providing, 
with  the  assent  of  the  next  subsequent  legislature,  a  change  of  the  constitution,  to 
change  the  constitution  of  the  State,  so  as  to  take  from  the  legislature  the  authority 
to  authorize  general  manumission  by  an  act  of  the  legislature,  unless  such  act  was 
unanimously  passed  at  one  session,  and  unanimously  sanctioned  at  the  succeeding 
session — practically  an  impossible  condition.  Now  this  very  Mr.  Griffith,  who  in 
the  Conference  of  1844  sneered  at  the  Maryland  law  which  secured  to  a  woman  her 
slave  property  belonging  to  her  at  the  time  of  marriage,  on  the  ground  that  it  was 
contrary  to  the  law  of  God,  which,  according  to  him,  gives  everything  belonging  to 
the  woman  to  her  husband,  as  by  Divine  right,  is  found  acting  as  chaplain  in  a  con- 
vention of  slaveholders  who  have  been  driven  to  the  conviction  of  the  necessity, 
brought  about  by  the  very  excitement  in  which  he  and  others  have  been  engaged,  to 
make  it  a  part  of  the  constitutional  law  of  Maryland  that  slavery  shall  always  exist 
within  her  limits.  I  speak  under  the  conviction  of  a  sincerity  as  great  as  I  ever  felt, 
when  I  say  that,  but  for  this  very  agitation  and  the  making  it  a  political  matter, 
Maryland  ere  this  would  not  have  had  a  slave  footprint  within  her  limits.  You  have 
doomed  us,  those  of  us  who  have  no  love  for  that  particular  condition  of  things,  and 
I  confess  myself  to  be  one  of  them — but  not  upon  the  ground  that  there  are  any  in- 
junctions in  the  Gospel  which  prohibit  it,  for  there  are  none.  The  Author  of  our 
religion  came  not  into  the  world  to  raise  the  arm  of  one  man  against  his  fellow-man, 
to  bring  about  servile  war,  to  carry  bloodshed  and  desolation  into  the  homes  and 
hearths  of  men ;  He  came  to  save  through  the  instrumentality  of  doctrines  sure, 
when  properly  understood  and  inculcated,  to  save.  He  came  not  to  destroy  masters. 
What  say  the  bishops  of  this  Church  in  that  Christian  but  cutting  rebuke  to  their 
brethren  across  the  waters  1  It  is  due  to  the  bishops  of  this  Church  to  say  that  they 
have  not  only  never  taken  part  in  this  agitation,  but  they  have  done  all  they  could  do 
as  Christian  men  to  arrest  it.  They  say,  page  66  : — 

"  Under  the  administration  of  the  venerated  Dr.  Coke,  this  plain  distinction  was 
once  overlooked,  and  it  was  attempted  to  urge  emancipation  in  all  the  States ;  but 
this  attempt  proved  almost  ruinous,  and  was  soon  abandoned  by  the  doctor  himself. 
While,  therefore,  the  Church  has  encouraged  emancipation  in  those  States  where 
the  laws  permit  it  and  allow  the  freed-man  to  .enjoy  freedom,  we  have  refrained,  for 
conscience'  sake,  from  all  intermeddling  with  the  subject  in  those  other  States  where 
the  laws  make  it  criminal.  And  such  a  course  we  think  agreeable  to  the  Scriptures, 
and  indicated  by  St.  Paul's  inspired  instruction  to  servants,  in  his  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  chap,  vii,  ver.  20, 21.  For  if  servants  were  not  to  care  for  their  servitude 
when  they  might  not  be  free,  though  if  they  might  be  free  they  should  use  it  rather, 
so  neither  should  masters  be  condemned  for  not  setting  them  free  when  they  might 
iwt  do  so,  though  if  they  might  they  should  do  so  rather." 

But  in  these  modern  days,  as  compared  with  some  who  are  to  be  found  amongst 
us,  in  a  pure  and  elevated  morality  St.  Paul  was  a  Hottentot,  and  in  a  far-seeing  and 
far-searching  wisdom  Christ  himself  an  imbecile  !  They  seek  to  improve  upon  the 
morality  of  St.  Paul.  They  attempt  and  claim  authority  to  exercise  the  function  of 
supplying  the  omissions  of  the  Deity.  God,  speaking  through  Paul,  tells  masters  to 
take  care  of  their  servants,  and  servants  to  obey  their  masters.  These  modern  apos- 
tles, tracing  their  authority  to  some  law  higher  even  than  the  law  of  God,  proclaim 
substantially,  "  Slaves,  exterminate  your  masters  ;  they  are  your  oppressors,  and  you 


352 

stand  entitled  to  freedom  upon  some  high,  more  elevated,  purer  law  than  is  to  be 
found  in  the  Gospel  of  your  God."  I  am  glad  to  know  that  the  extent  to  which  this 
fanaticism  has  gone  in  this  Church  is,  in  the  particulars  to  which  I  have  alluded,  com- 
paratively limited  but  these  gentlemen  stand  still  within  narrow  and  perilous  limits 
on  that  question.  I  pray  them,  as  servants  of  God,  to  remember  that  the  progress 
of  fanatacism  is  never  backward,  unless  it  be  driven  backward  by  the  dread  of  force 
and  bloodshed.  The  stake  has  often  witnessed  the  dying  sincerity  of  the  fanatic  as 
well  as  of  the  martyr.  - 

Pardon  me  for  a  moment  in  reading  to  you,  to  show  the  extent  to  which  this  feeling 
had  gone,  from  the  address  of  Bishop  Andrew  himself  to  this  very  Conference,  who 
were  about  to  pass  judgment  on  his  moral  and  religious  life,  and  to  proclaim  him  to 
the  world  as  unfitted  to  minister  at  the  altar  of  God  in  this  the  Northern  section  of  the 
land,  however  competent  he  might  be  at  the  South.  This  address,  which  is  a  long 
speech,  and  challenges  commendation,  your  Honours  will  find  on  page  148  of  the 
Debates  of  the  Conference  of  1844.  He  states  how  he  became  a  slaveholder ;  and  he 
then  says  : — 

"  It  has  been  said  I  did  this  thing  voluntarily,  and  with  my  eyes  open.  I  did  so  de- 
liberately and  in  the  fear  of  God,  and  God  has  blessed  our  union." 

What  do  you  suppose  he  is  speaking  of]  Why,  he  married  a  Southern  lady,  and 
it  was  said  in  the  Conference  that  he  ought  not  to  have  married  any  Southern  woman 
who  had  slaves,  that  it  was  a  sin  against  God  to  marry  a  female  if  she  was  the  owner 
of  slaves.  He  goes  on  : — 

"  I  might  have  avoided  this  difficulty  by  a  trick — by  making  over  those  slaves  to 
my  wife  before  marriage  ;  or,  by  doing  as  a  friend,  who  has  taken  ground  for  the  reso- 
lution before  you,  suggested." 

What  do  you  suppose  was  the  remedy  recommended  by  this  conscientious  friend, 
who  would  not  permit  Bishop  Andrew  to  remain  in  the  Church  because  he  was  the 
owner  of  slaves  by  marriage  1  It  was  : — 

" '  Why,'  said  he,  '  did  you  not  let  your  wife  make  over  these  negroes  to  her 
children,  securing  to  herself  an  annuity  from  them,'!'  " 

That  would  have  been  honest — that  would  have  emancipated  the  negroes.  That 
is  it  not  all.  He  says  he  could  not  get  rid  of  them : — 

"  They  love  their  mistress,  and  could  not  be  induced,  under  any  circumstances,  to 
leave  her.  Sir,  an  aged  and  respectable  minister  said  to  me  several  years  ago,  when, 
I  stated  just  such  a  case  to  him,  and  asked  him  what  he  would  do, — '  I  would  set 
them  free,'  said  he,  '  I  'd  wash  my  hands  of  them,  and  if  they  went  to  the  devil,  P'a 

BE  CLEAR  OF  THEM.'  " 

There  is  the  philanthropy  of  fanaticism.  To  free  them  ;  if  we  cannot  do  it  in  any, 
other  way,  send  them  to  the  devil — that  is  our  mission.  I  am  not  to  be  understood 
as  intimating  for  a  moment  that  the  Church  as  a  Church,  or  that  the  members  gene- 
rally entertain  such  opinions.  I  refer  to  this  as  an  instance,  to  show  the  alarming, 
unchristian  results  to  which  fanaticism  leads.  It  would  be  but  another,  and  compa- 
tively  a  humane  step  to  have  said :  "  You  masters  of  the  South,  get  clear  of  your  slaves 
by  cutting  their  throats  ;"  or,  "  You  slaves  of  the  South,  get  clear  of  your  masters 
and  become  freemen  by  cutting  their  throats."  In  either  case  the  dead  might  go  to 
heaven,  which  would  be  infinitely  better  than  sending  either  master  or  slave  to  the 
devil,  as  one  means  to  get  rid  of  slavery. 

I  have  not  time  to  turn  your  Honours'  attention  to  the  grounds  taken  in  rdation  to 


353 

.e  Maryland  law  as  to  the  power  of  Mr.  Harding  to  emancipate  his  negroes.  He 
could  not  emancipate  them,  for  the  very  important  reason  that  they  did  not  belong  to 
him,  but  belonged  to  his  wife.  I  will,  however,  refer  to  what  was  said  by  Mr.  Collins 
and  Mr.  Griffith  in  the  Conference  of  1844  on  the  Harding  case.  One  of  them,  Mr. 
Collins,  governed  I  trust  by  conscientious  considerations  of  duty,  takes  occasion  to 
declare,  page  42  of  the  Debates  : — 

"  But  he  would  say  boldly,  that  if  the  law  had  been  ten-fold  what  it  is,  if  it  had 
actually,  outright  and  downright,  without  any  possibility  of  avoiding  it,  taken  these 
slaves  from  Harding's  control,  the  conference  would  still  have  acted  just  as  they 
did  ;  because  they  did  not  intend  to  change  their  ground,  and  could  not  pretend  to  alter 
their  views  with  every  shifting  of  the  legislature." 

Your  Discipline  says  :  observe  the  laws  of  the  country  in  which  you  are ;  wherever 
you  may  be,  enter  not  into  the  political  turmoils  of  the  day  ;  place  yourselves  not  in 
opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  place  hi  which,  as  the  servant  of  God,  you  are  minister- 
ing, for  it  is  one  of  the  duties  of  the  ministry  to  obey  the  civil  laws.  "  I  will  do  no 
such  thing,"  says  Mr.  Travelling  Preacher  Collins ;  "I  will  not  accommodate  myself 
to  the  shifting  caprices  of  the  legislature  of  the  State  in  which  I  live."  Hear  next 
what  brother  Griffith  says,  page  41  of  the  Debates  : — 

"  He  could  disentangle  himself  hi  an  hour  if  he  liked,  the  laws  of  Maryland  not- 
withstanding. In  point  of  fact  the  law  against  manumission  was  inoperative.  It 
would  be  indeed  strange  if  a  freeman  had  not  the  right  to  make  that  disposal  of  his 
property  which  he  might  choose  to  make.  Maryland  never  had  said  that  a  slave 
might  be  taken  up  and  sold— she  never  had  declared  that  slaves  were  property,  and 
then  in  the  same  breath,  that  men  should  not  do  what  they  thought  fit  with  their  own 
property,  and  that  she  assumed  the  right  to  do  that  which  she  forbade  the  owner  do- 
ing. No,  sir ;  they  know  that  a  man  has  a  right  to  set  his  slaves  free,  they  know  the 
illegality  and  imperfection  of  any  act  to  the  contrary,  and  yet  they  try  to  control  it, 
and  ward  off  the  consequences  by  this  kind  of — he  hardly  knew  how  to  designate 
such  kind  of  legislation." 

That  is,  if  sincere,  were  fanaticism ;  that  would  be  treason,  if  carried  out  by 
overt  act ;  that,  as  sure  as  there  is  a  God  above  us,  would,  if  so  carried  out  in  opposi- 
tion to  those  laws,  have  landed  Messrs.  Collins  and  Griffith,  Christian  ministers  as 
they  are,  within  the  limits  of  the  Maryland  penitentiary.  God  forbid  they  should 
ever  be  there, — because  in  many  respects  they  are  good  men,  and  they  have  declared 
these  sentiments,  it  is  to  be  hi  charity  hoped,  for  conscience'  sake, — but  there  they 
would  have  gone,  and  in  vain  would  they  have  invoked  the  authority  of  their  Gospel 
mission  to  save  them,  for  they  would  find  in  that  authority  an  injunction  running  all 
through  it  to  preachers  to  observe  the  local  municipal  laws. 

A  word  more,  and  I  leave  the  question  of  necessity  for  the  division.  We  have 
been  told  that  it  might  have  been  avoided,  that  there  was  not  the  slightest  occasion 
in  the  world  for  the  division  of  this  Church.  To  be  sure  the  agitation  had  been  kept 
up,  and  there  was  no  promise  to  stop  it ;  to  be  sure  a  preacher  had  been  unfrocked 
because  he  came  to  be  the  owner  of  slaves,  and  there  was  no  promise  that  the  same 
thing  would  not  be  repeated  hi  other  cases  ;  to  be  sure  a  bishop  had  been  degraded, 
and  there  was  not  only  no  promise  not  thereafter  to  degrade  hi  such  cases,  but  there 
was  an  express  avowal  of  an  authority,  and  almost  of  a  duty  to  impeach  and  punish ; 
still,  says  my  brother  Choate,  there  was  no  necessity  for  a  division.  Why,  says  he, 
the  South  might  have  submitted.  Submission  is  the  remedy.  "  Go  home,  you 
Southern  preachers,  carry  with  you  the  evidences  of  your  individual  degradation. 
Go  into  your  meeting-houses,  and  say  to  your  brethren  that,  in  the  opinion  of  your 
Church,  every  one  is  unworthy  in  the  sight  of  man  and  of  God  who  happens  to  be  a 

23 


354 

slaveholder.  Tell  them  that  the  blessing  of  God  has  illuminated  the  minds  of  the 
Northern  members  of  the  Church,  and  made  them  at  last  find  out  the  truth  that  such 
is  your  miserable  degradation.  We  invoke  you  to  submit.  Admit  self-degradation, 
admit  the  existence  in  your  own  persons  of  a  moral  leprosy,  admit  that  you  are  steeped 
all  over  with  sin,  and  submit."  The  bishops  said  that  Dr.  Coke  in  1784  attempted 
to  announce  and  execute  the  same  doctrine,  and  the  single  year  in  which  he  attempted 
to  carry  it  into  effect  almost  ruined  the  Church.  The  bishops  had  announced  that 
it  was  the  opinion  of  this  very  Conference  in  1836  and  1840  that  the  continued  agi- 
tation of  the  subject  of  slavery,  and  the  considering  it  as  a  matter  of  moral  or  religious 
sin,  was  bringing  this  Church  into  a  condition  of  the  most  absolute  ruin  at  the  South. 
The  bishops  had  announced  in  their  answer  to  the  address  of  the  British  Conference, 
that  the  whole  Church  was  necessarily  to  observe  the  laws  of  the  States  in  which 
slavery  existed.  The  bishops  had  announced  that  so  far  from  there  being  anything 
in  the  Gospel  denouncing  slavery,  as  of  itself,  and  under  all  circumstances  a  sin,  it 
was  a  relation  to  be  prayed  for,  to  be  watched  over,  to  have  invoked  on  it  the  bless- 
ings of  God  himself. 

There,  then,  in  submission  was  one  mode  in  which  the  necessity  might  have  been 
avoided,  but  there  was  not  the  intimation  of  an  opinion  that  it  was  probable  that  sub- 
mission would,  then  or  at  any  time,  be  adopted.  There  is  a  method  left  still  by 
which  a  reunion  may  be  brought  about,  but  it  is  not  by  submission  -on  the  part  of  the 
South.  If  every  minister  in  the  Connexion  was  willing  to  submit,  as  submission 
would  be  self-degradation,  he  could  not  bring  about  a  reunion  of  the  Church,  South, 
with  their  brethren  of  the  Church,  North.  There  is,  however,  one  mode  in  which 
it  may  be  brought  about.  I  have  no  doubt  God  will  bless  the  effort,  looking  to  his 
past  care  of  this  Church.  Abandon,  preachers  of  the  North,  the  ground  upon  which 
you  acted  in  the  case  of  Harding  and  of  Andrew  ;  go  back  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  in  1836  ;  stand  upon  the  platform  declared  to  be  the  proper  and  religious 
platform  upon  which  alone  you  had  a  right  to  stand  in  1840  ;  cease  to  assail  your 
brethren  of  the  South  ;  and  you  and  they,  to  the  delight  of  the  Christian  world,  will 
again  be  one  :  and  as  long  as  you  continue  to  exercise  your  power  in  that  spirit  of 
fraternal  and  religious  love,  you  will  be  indivisible. 

In  the  Reply  to  the  Protest,  announcing  the  absolute  necessity  of  a  division,  pag 
114,  the  Northern  gentlemen  say  they  had  no  doubt  that  Bishop  Andrew  was  a  "  very 
benevolent  and  Christian  master."  If  their  doctrines  be  right,  I  cannot  imagine  how 
a  master  can  be  a  Christian  at  all.  They  say  God  proclaims  freedom  as  the  right  of 
all,  and  you  war  against  the  law  of  God  in  holding  a  man  in  a  state  of  bondage. 
Still,  from  courtesy,  I  suppose,  they  call  Bishop  Andrew  a  Christian  master.  They 
then  go  on  to  say  : — 

"  It  was  the  almost  unanimous  opinion  of  the  delegates  from  the  non-si aveholding 
conferences  that  Bishop  Andrew  could  not  continue  to  exercise  his  episcopal  func- 
tions under  existing  circumstances,  without  producing  results  extremely  disastrous 
to  the  Church  in  the  North ;  and  from  this  opinion  the  brethren  of  the  South  did  not 
dissent." 

Then  something  was  to  be  done.  What  had  Bishop  Andrew  done  1  Why,  in  the 
State  of  Georgia,  where  manumission  is  not  tolerated,  he  agreed  to  take  a  negro  girl, 
and  if  possible  manumit  her,  and  send  her  to  Liberia.  He  could  not  do  it ;  but,  as 
far  as  the  laws  would  permit,  he  suffered  the  poor  girl  to  act  as  if  she  were  free. 
Then  he  married  a  woman  who  had  slaves.  Well,  but  they  acted  leniently  with 
Bishop  Andrew,  because  he  was  a  "  Christian  master  !"  They  did  not  expel  him, 
to  be  sure ;  but  what  do  they  say  they  had  a  right  to  do  1  What  is  the  doctrine  upon 

23* 


355 

which  they  then  stood,  and  stand  now  1     Let  them  speak  for  themselves.     On  page 
115,  Proofs  No.  1,  they  say  : — 

"  A  diversity  of  sentiment  existed  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  treating  the  case. 

"  Some  at  least  believed — perhaps  few  doubted — that  sufficient  ground  existed 
for  impeachment  on  a  charge  of  '  improper  conduct,'  under  the  express  provisions  of 
the  Discipline.  The  opinion  was  certainly  entertained  in  several  quarters,  that  it 
was  '  improper'  for  the  shepherd  or  bishop  of  eleven  hundred  thousand  souls,  either 
deliberately  or  heedlessly,  to  place  himself  in  direct  and  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the 
known  and  cherished  moral  sentiments  of  a  large  majority  of  his  vast  flock." 

The  minority  might  take  care  of  themselves — these  gentlemen  are  looking  to  the 
North  alone.  Are  there  no  souls  to  be  saved  on  the  other  side  of  Mason's  and  Dixon's 
line  ?  Are  you  not  willing  to  content  yourselves  with  having  bishops  who  are  not 
the  holders  of  slaves,  who  may  by  an  arrangement,  as  between  themselves  and  the  other 
bishops,  pursue  the  functions  of  bishops  this  side  of  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line,  in  accord- 
ance with  all  the  prejudices  of  the  members  of  the  Church  this  side  of  the  line  T  Are 
you  not  content  to  leave,  under  that  arrangement,  to  the  bishops  themselves  to  make 
such  a  provision,  that  the  religious  wants  of  the  South  may  be  supplied  through  the 
ministry  of  bishops  who  are  not  obnoxious  to,  or  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with,  any 
of  the  moral  sentiments  of  the  South  1  See  what  the  fathers  of  the  Church  told 
them.  They  had  witnessed  the  angry  contention,  and  wept  over  and  prayed  through 
the  debates  which  characterized  it.  They  asked  that  the  subject  might  be  postponed, 
to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  recommending  some  plan  by  which  the  Church  might 
be  saved.  0  !  how  much  is  it  to  be  deplored  that  these  gentlemen  did  not  follow 
the  advice  of  these  their  fathers  !  As  I  believe  in  my  own  existence,  do  I  believe 
that,  if  their  advice  had  been  followed,  the  exigency  in  which  the  Church  now  finds 
herself,  a  state  of  comparatively  hostile  and  angry  feeling  in  which  the  members  are 
arrayed  against  each  other,  would  have  been  avoided.  I  will  read  a  few  sentences 
from  the  address  of  these  bishops  to  the  General  Conference  of  1844,  during  the 
pendency  of  Andrew's  case,  but  in  advance  of  the  judgment  pronounced  on  it. 
On  page  88  they  say : — 

"  As  they  have  pored  over  this  subject  with  anxious  thought,  by  day  and  by  night, 
they  have  been  more  and  more  impressed  with  the  difficulties  connected  therewith, 
and  the  disastrous  results  which,  in  their  apprehension,  are  the  almost  inevitable  con- 
sequences of  present  action  on  the  question  pending  before  you.  To  the  undersigned 
it  is  fully  apparent  that  a  decision  thereon,  whether  affirmatively  or  negatively,  will 
most  extensively  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  of  that  widely-extended  brotherhood 
which  has  so  effectively  operated  for  good,  in  the  United  States  of  America  and  else- 
where, during  the  last  sixty  years." 

Again,  on  page  89,  they  say : — 

"  At  this  painful  crisis,  they  have  unanimously  concurred  in  the  propriety  of  re- 
commending the  postponement  of  further  action  in  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew  until 
the  ensuing  General  Conference." 

That  would  be  until  1848. 

"  It  does  riot  enter  into  the  design  of  the  undersigned  to  argue  the  propriety  of 
their  recommendation,  otherwise  strong  and  valid  reasons  might  be  adduced  in  its 
support.  They  cannot  but  think  that  if  the  embarrassment  of  Bishop  Andrew  should 
not  cease  before  that  time,  the  next  General  Conference,  representing  the  pastors, 
ministers,  and  people  of  the  several  annual  conferences,  after  all  the  facts  in  the  case 
shall  have  passed  in  review  before  them,  will  be  better  qualified  than  the  present  Gene- 
ral Conference  can  be  to  adjudicate  the  case  wisely  and  discreetly.  Until  the  cessa- 


356 

tion  of  the  embarrassment,  or  the  expiration  of  the  interval  between  the  present  and 
the  ensuing  General  Conference,  the  undersigned  believe  that  such  a  division  of  the 
work  of  the  general  superintendency  might  be  made,  without  any  infraction  of  a  con- 
stitutional principle,  as  would  fully  employ  Bishop  Andrew  in  those  sections  of  the 
Church  in  which  his  presence  and  services  would  be  welcome  and  cordial." 

No,  says  the  Conference,  the  sacrifice  must  be  made  now ;  now  must  the  sen- 
tence be  pronounced  ;  he  has  sinned  past  salvation,  and  our  sense  of  duty  will  not 
permit  us  to  wait  till  1848  ;  now  we  will  pronounce  our  judgment ;  now  must  Bishop 
Andrew  be  deposed  ;  and  now  he  is  deposed. 

In  relation  to  the  character  of  the  sentence  passed  on  Bishop  Andrew  by  the  Con- 
ference of  1844,  I  will  refer  to  what  these  Northern  gentlemen  say  in  the  Conference 
of  1848,  in  their  address  upon  the  state  of  the  Church.  Our  learned  friends  on  the 
other  side  contend  that  this  was  merely  an  advisory  measure  ;  that  Bishop  Andrew 
was  still  a  bishop,  the  mitre  was  still  upon  his  brow,  he  might  exercise  still  the  func- 
tions of  a  bishop,  that  there  was  nothing  in  what  the  Conference  of  1844  had  done  to 
repudiate  his  authority  as  a  bishop,  and  his  case,  therefore,  constituted  no  reason 
whatever  for  the  step  taken  by  the  Church,  South,  in  1844.  The  Conference  of  1848, 
on  page  141,  says : — 

"  In  the  mean  time  Bishop  Soule  wrote  to  Bishop  Andrew,  requesting  him  to  re- 
sume episcopal  functions,  and,  in  the  character  and  office  of  a  bishop,  to  attend  the 
sessions  of  annual  conferences,  which  he  did,  though  said  act  was  clearly  in  contraven- 
tion of  the  expressed  will  of  the  General  Conference,  that  he  desist  from  the  exercise 
of  the  episcopal  office  so  long  as  the  impediment  of  slaveholding  '  remained.'  By 
which  acts  both  Bishop  Soule  and  Bishop  Andrew  openly  repudiated  the  authority  of 
the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 

Why,  how  do  the  counsel  represent  this  matter  1  Is  he  still  a  bishop  1  Yes. 
Did  they  not  in  charity  leave  him  a  bishop  1  Yes.  Did  not  they,  although  avowing 
their  authority  and  almost  their  duty  to  disrobe  him  and  depose  and  punish  him  as  a 
bishop  under  the  provision  of  the  Discipline,  which  made  him  amenable  to  the  Con- 
ference for  improper  conduct,  kindly,  humanely,  and  charitably  refrain,  and  only 
advise  him  to  desist  from  his  functions  1  Yes.  But,  inasmuch  as  he  has  thought 
proper  to  exercise  the  functions  which  we  left  and  intended  to  leave  to  him,  he,  they 
say,  openly  repudiated  their  authority.  Why,  it  is  absurd.  He  did  repudiate  their 
authority  in  one  sense,  he  went  counter  to  the  opinion  of  the  General  Conference, 
and  if  the  General  Conference  had  authority  to  pronounce  that  opinion,  and  pro- 
nounced it  authoritatively,  then  superintending  the  annual  conferences,  after  the  pro- 
nunciation of  the  opinion  and  during  the  existence  of  the  impediment  on  account  of 
which  it  was  pronounced,  was  an  open  and  absolute  defiance  of  the  authority  of  the 
Conference.  But  the  learned  counsel  give  a  different  character  to  the  judgment  from 
these  gentlemen  of  the  Conference  of  1848. 

A  word  now  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  Conference  in  both  these  cases — of  Harding 
and  Andrew.  Under  the  laws  of  the  Church  as  they  were  at  that  time,  there  never 
was,  to  my  mind,  a  more  palpable  violation  of  them  than  was  committed  in  the  judg- 
ments in  these  cases.  We  have  been  told  that  the  general  rule  of  the  Church  pro- 
hibited any  officer  of  the  Church  from  holding  slaves  when  elected,  or  during  the  ex- 
istence of  his  official  life  ;  and  that  the  general  rule  thereof  embraced  the  case  of  a 
bishop  as  well  as  all  other  officers ;  and  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  who  vindicate 
the  bishop  to  bring  the  case  of  the  bishop  within  the  limits  of  some  exception  to  the 
general  rule  ;  and  that  we  have  failed  to  do  this  because  the  exception  embraced  only 
"travelling  preachers,"  who  then,  in  the  nomenclature  of  this  Church,  are  such 
preachers  as  contradistinguished  from  bishops. 


357 

I  was  a  little  surprised,  though  not  much  struck,  with  the  ingenuity  of  the  argu- 
ment. The  counsel  using  it  ought  to  have  known  that  the  Court  was  to  look  to  the 
evidence  in  this  case ;  but  my  learned  brother  contented  himself  with  referring  to  the 
rule  upon  the  subject  of  slavery,  adopted  in  1808  or  1812,  but  did  not  refer  to  the 
law  upon  the  subject  adopted  in  1816,  nor  to  the  declaratory  law,  to  be  found  in  a 
resolution  adopted  by  the  Conference  of  1840  upon  what  was  called  the  Westmore- 
land petition,  to  which,  however,  I  shall  now  particularly  advert.  My  learned  brother 
talked  about  the  resolution  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  the  allowances  to  ministers, 
on  page  29,  of  Proofs  No.  1 ;  but  if  he  had  turned  to  page  24,  to  which  I  ask  your 
Honours'  attention,  he  would  have  found  an  answer,  and  a  conclusive  answer,  to  his  entire 
argument  on  this  point.  That  argument  was,  that  a  bishop  falling  within  the  operation 
of  the  general  rule  which  prohibited  the  holding  of  slaves  by  all  officers  in  the  Church, 
was  not  excepted  from  the  operation  of  that  rule  by  the  particular  exception  in  rela- 
tion to  travelling  preachers.  I  will  not  stop  to  argue  whether  in  this  he  is  right  or 
wrong.  The  particular  exception,  page  31,  is, — 

"  When  any  travelling  preacher  becomes  an  owner  of  a  slave  or  slaves,  by  any 
means,  he  shall  forfeit  his  ministerial  character  in  our  Church,  unless  he  execute,  if  it 
be  practicable,  a  legal  emancipation  of  such  slaves,  conformably  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  he  lives." 

The  learned  counsel  says  "  travelling  preacher  "  does  not  include  "  bishop,"  and, 
as  the  general  rule  prohibits  all,  the  bishop  remained  prohibited  by  force  of  it. 
But  in  1816,  as  the  Court  will  see  by  turning  to  page  24,  the  Conference  then  adopted 
a  rule,  which  forms  the  first  of  the  rules  on  the  subject  in  the  Discipline  of  1840.  To 
that  the  counsel  has  not  referred.  It  is, — 

"  We  declare  that  we  are  as  much  as  ever  convinced  of  the  great  evil  of  slavery  , 
therefore  no  slaveholder  shall  be  eligible  to  any  official  station  in  our  Church  hereafter, 
where  the  laws  of  the  State  in  which  he  lives  will  admit  of  emancipation  and  permit 
the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom." 

I  presume  "  any  official  station  "  covers  the  case  of  a  bishop.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  argue  that.  What  does  this  show  1  The  Church  makes  a  general  rule  in  1784  or 
1785  declaring  war  against  slavery  as  a  moral  evil ;  they  cannot  execute  it,  the  very 
life  of  the  Church  is  about  to  be  sacrificed  by  the  attempt  to  execute  it ;  it  then  be- 
comes the  settled  policy  of  the  Church  in  1808  or  1812  to  recognise  the  laws  of  the 
State  in  which  slavery  exists  and  where  emancipation  is  prohibited  ;  and  it  becomes 
consequently  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  provide  for  the  case  of  the  travelling  preacher 
in  order  to  carry  on  the  Church  in  those  States  in  which  slavery  exists  where  eman- 
cipation is  prohibited.  They  first  except  the  case  of  the  travelling  preacher  ;  but  in 
1816,  alive  to  a  more  important  necessity,  they  find  that  the  usefulness  of  the  Church 
depends  upon  the  recognition,  as  regards  every  official  station  in  the  Church,  of  the 
laws  of  the  States  in  which  slavery  exists  and  in  which  emancipation  is  prohibited,  and 
they  authorize  any  and  every  man  to  be  elected  to  any  and  every  official  station  in  the 
Church,  notwithstanding  he  is  the  holder  of  slaves,  if  he  lives  in  a  State  where  slavery 
exists  and  where  emancipation  is  prohibited.  Is  not  this  clear  ?  The  words  admit  of 
but  one  interpretation.  Now  see  what  this  Conference  of  1840  itself  said,  by  adopt- 
ing the  resolution  on  pages  74  and  75.  He  who  was  then  of  the  Church,  and  one  of 
its  brightest  luminaries,  as  your  Honours  sufficiently  know  from  the  papers  in  evidence, 
of  which  he  was  the  author,  now  elsewhere  enjoying  the  reward  of  a  well-spent  and 
a  religious  life — Mr.  Bascom — was  chairman  of  a  committee  to  whom  the  petition  of 
some  lay  members  of  the  Westmoreland  circuit,  in  the  Baltimore  Conference,  was 
referred.  Tune  after  time  that  conference  refused  to  ordain  preachers  upon  no  other 


358 

ground,  as  it  was  alleged  in  the  petition,  except  that  the  persons  recommended  were 
the  owners  of  slaves.  Mr.  Bascom,  whose  opinions  are  perfectly  well  known  on  the 
subject,  writes  a  report  which  concludes  with  a  resolution  I  am  about  to  read,  in 
which  he  says  they  can  do  nothing  to  grant  relief  in  the  particular  cases,  because,  on 
turning  to  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  which  had  refused  to  elect  these  several 
ministers,  no  such  reason  was  assigned,  and  it  was  not,  therefore,  to  be  assumed  that 
that  was  the  ground ;  but  with  a  view  to  the  ascertainment  of  what  the  law  was  in  a 
case  of  that  description,  and  in  order  to  have  again  declared  what  the  law  was  in  the 
case  made  by  the  memorial,  the  committee  unanimously  recommended  the  adoption 
of  a  declaratory  resolution,  and  these  very  gentlemen  who  constituted  the  Conference 
of  1840,  and  many  of  whom  were  in  the  Conference  of  1844,  adopted  it.  I  am  now, 
remember,  endeavouring  to  show  that  the  bishop's  case  came  within  the  operation  of 
the  law  of  this  Church,  which  said  that  the  holding  of  slaves,  where  slavery  by  law 
existed,  and  where  by  law  manumission  was  prohibited,  should  be  no  objection  to  a 
man's  eligibility  in  the  first  instance,  or  to  his  continuing  thereafter  to  discharge  the 
functions  of  any  station  in  the  Church.  That  resolution  of  1840  was  in  these 
words : — 

"  Resolved,  by  the  delegates  of  the  several  annual  conferences  in  General  Con- 
ference assembled,  That  under  the  provisional  exception  of  the  general  rule  of  the 
Church  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  the  simple  holding  of  slaves,  or  mere  ownership  of 
slave  property,  in  States  or  territories  where  the  laws  do  not  admit  of  emancipation 
and  permit  the  liberated  slave  to  enjoy  freedom,  constitutes  no  legal  barrier  to  the  elec- 
tion or  ordination  of  ministers  to  the  various  grades  of  office  known  in  the  ministry  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  cannot  therefore  be  considered  as  operating  any 
forfeiture  of  right  in  view  of  such  election  and  ordination." 

Is  not  the  office  of  bishop  a  grade  of  ministry  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  1 
The  law  of  this  Church  then,  solemnly  reiterated  as  its  law  by  a  vote  of  the  Con- 
ference of  1840,  was,  that  where  slavery  did  not  exist  no  slaveholder  could  be  elected 
to  any  office  ;  but  that  where  slavery  did  exist,  and  emancipation  was  prohibited  within 
the  State  in  which  the  master  resided,  the  being  a  slaveholder  was  to  be  no  test  of 
eligibility  in  the  first  instance,  and  no  ground  of  forfeiture  after  election.  Now,  the 
Conference  of  1844,  with  that  law  before  them,  depose,  as  we  say,  or  censure,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  admission,  Bishop  Andrew,  upon  the  ground  of  some  general  law  in 
the  Discipline  which  speaks  of  improper  conduct,  which,  by  a  species  of  construction 
I  cannot  comprehend,  they  construe  to  mean  the  doing  that  which  the  very  law  of  the 
Church  authorizes  to  be  done.  "  Improper  conduct "  is  the  word  in  the  portion  of 
the  Discipline  under  which  they  act  and  under  which  they  punish  him.  Improper 
conduct  in  the  doing  of  what  1  Improper  conduct  in  holding  slaves  when  the  law 
says  he  might  hold  them  1  Is  he  to  forfeit  his  right  as  bishop  for  being  the  owner 
of  slaves  when  you  have  said  over  and  over  again  that  it  constitutes  no  objection  to 
eligibility,  and  no  ground  of  forfeiture  1  Why,  that  is  an  absolute,  undefined,  illimit- 
able tyranny.  Keeping  within  the  law  is  no  protection ;  observing  the  law  is  no  de- 
fence. "  We,  in  the  possession  of  that  mighty  transcendental  power  to  be  found 
under  the  general  authority  to  examine  into  the  conduct  of  the  ministry,  can  convict 
you  of  any  and  every  act  which,  according  to  our  judgment,  is  improper  conduct, 
although  according  to  our  laws  it  is  proper  conduct."  I  say,  therefore,  with  great 
respect,  that  in  the  whole  history  of  jurisprudence,  in  its  actual  administration 
throughout  the  civilized  world,  where  duty  is  inculcated  by  law  and  rights  are  pro- 
tected by  law,  this  is  as  clear  and  palpable  an  infraction  of  law  as  is  to  be  found  dis- 
gracing any  of  the  pages  of  the  books  which  illustrate  the  utter  regardlessness  of  law 
in  the  early  and  dark  and  tyrannous  ages  of  English  jurisprudence.  The  English 


359 

martyrs  suffered  their  sentences,  and  without  a  groan  or  the  movement  of  a  muscle 
carried  with  them  and  supported  through  the  flames  the  spirit  by  which  they  were 
animated  ;  and  these  revolting  sentences  were  perhaps,  at  times,  pronounced  by  tri- 
bunals who  professed,  and  perhaps  thought,  they  were  thereby  carrying  out  some  law 
of  God,  as  these  gentlemen  preachers  hi  the  case  of  Bishop  Andrew.  But  under 
such  a  government  as  that,  who  is  safe  1  Bring  a  provision  like  that  into  the  criminal 
code  of  the  United  States,  and  what  would  be  the  consequence  1  Your  Honours 
have  your  duties  defined  by  statute ;  you  may,  under  the  law  and  according  to  the 
express  terms  of  the  law,  do  this,  that,  or  the  other,  without  objection,  without  for- 
feiture ;  you  may,  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  be  slaveholders  with- 
out forfeiting  any  political  or  private  right  that  you  may  have.  But  bring  upon  the 
statute  book  of  the  United  States  a  sweeping  power  to  remove  from  the  bench  the 
lights  that  adorn'  it,  and  under  a  general  authority  to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of 
public  functionaries,  to  remove  them,  if,  hi  the  opinion  of  the  trying  body,  that  con- 
duct is  improper ;  would  not  the  blood  of  every  citizen  boil  with  indignation  at  an 
attempt  to  bring  either  of  your  Honours  within  the  operation  of  such  a  power,  for  the 
holding  of  slaves  which  by  law  you  are  authorized  to  hold  1  And  yet  these  gentle- 
men preachers  have  done  precisely  that  very  thing.  Bishop  Andrew  was  a  slave- 
holder, under  the  law  and  by  virtue  of  the  law  ;  his  rights  as  a  bishop  were  protected 
by  the  very  law  which  authorized  him  to  hold  slaves  ;  and  yet  under  this  general 
sweeping  authority  of  inquiring  into  the  conduct  of  the  bishops,  they  assumed  the 
power  of  being  wiser  than  the  law,  and  of  saying  that,  although  the  law  authorized  it, 
the  thing  authorized  was  improper,  and  to  be  punished.  They  go  to  a  higher  source, 
to  that  "  higher  law  "  which  we  have  heard  in  modern  times  is  an  authority  to  dis- 
obey or  not  carry  out  a  constitutional  law  of  the  United  States.  It  cannot  be  so. 

I  was  not  advised  until  this  moment  that  these  gentlemen  waked  up  to  the  con- 
sequences of  having  adopted  the  resolution  on  the  Westmoreland  petition.  We  find 
them  in  their  own  Conference  of  1848,  as  will  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  journals  of 
that  Conference,  p.  125,  rescinding  that  resolution : — 

"  Whereas  the  following  resolution  is  found  appended  to  the  report  on  the  West- 
moreland petition,  and  was  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1840,  to  wit : — " 

The  resolution  is  then  recited : — 

"  And  whereas  said  resolution  is  liable  to  misconstruction,  and  has  been  miscon- 
strued greatly  to  the  prejudice  of  our  beloved  Methodism.  Therefore, 

"  Resolved,  1st.  That  said  resolution  be,  and  is  hereby,  rescinded. 

"Resolved,  Zd.  That  in  rescinding  said  resolution,  we  contemplate  no  interference 
with  that  section  of  the  Discipline  on  slavery  ;  but  wish  simply  to  leave  it  without 
note  or  comment." 

They  do  not  even  then,  in  1848,  pretend  to  interfere  with  the  law  of  1816.  The 
Conference  in  passing  that  law  was  then  speaking  to  itself.  My  friend,  Mr.  Choate, 
told  the  Court,  that  in  all  the  rules  on  slavery,  from  1784  to  1840,  it  was  the  Gene- 
ral Conference  speaking  to  the  annual  conferences  ;  but  you  will  see,  that  the  reso- 
lution of  1816  is  a  resolution  of  the  General  Conference  announcing  for  itself,  as  a 
rule  for  its  own  government,  the  law  of  the  Church  upon  the  question  of  slavery, 
and  that  is  precisely  what  the  Westmoreland  resolution  says  ;  but  these  gentlemen, 
without  giving  any  reason,  except  that  it  might  be  misunderstood,  repeal  the  resolu- 
tion, and  leave  the  law  of  1816  to  stand  as  when  it  was  passed.  They  might  very 
well  have  repealed  that  resolution,  for  it  was  a  direct  censure  on  themselves  in  their 
votes  upon  Harding's  case,  and  Andrew's  case ;  but  it  was  no  further  a  censure 
than  the  law  of  1816.  It  was  a  censure,  because  under  it  the  act  was  censurable. 


360 

Now  I  have  a  word  to  say  upon  my  second  point,  the  construction  of  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  for  it  is  really  too  plain  for  argument,  although  the  case  is  made,  by  the 
answer  to  our  bill,  to  turn  very  materially  upon  it.  In  the  answer, — in  the  argu- 
ment it  was  not  much  pressed  by  our  friends  on  the  other  side,  for  they  did  not  seem 
to  think  they  could  maintain  such  an  extravagant  proposition, — as  well  as  in  the 
review  of  the  state  of  the  Church  made  by  the  Conference  of  1848,  at  Pittsburgh, 
the  broad  ground  is  taken,  that  the  Plan  of  Separation  under  which  the  Southern 
Church  was  established,  was  conditional,  and  that  the  condition  was  the  agreement 
of  the  conferences,  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  voting,  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive 
rule.  There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  It  is  so  plain  that  I  am  saved  from  the 
necessity  of  detaining  your  Honours  with  discussion  on  the  subject.  The  first  reso- 
lution of  the  Plan  of  Separation  is, — 

"  That,  should  the  annual  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States  find  it  necessary 
to  unite  in  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  Connexion," 

then,  a  division  is  to  be  made.  The  only  thing  upon  which  a  division  is  there  made 
to  turn  is  the  action  of  the  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States.  The  second  reso- 
lution depends  exclusively  upon  the  same  thing — the  action  of  the  conferences  in 
the  slaveholding  States.  It  says,  contemplating  the  division  as  already  made, 

"  That  ministers,  local  and  travelling,  of  every  grade  and  office  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  may,  as  they  prefer,  remain  in  that  Church,  or,  without  blame, 
attach  themselves  to  the  Church,  South." 

There  was  something  else  to  be  done.     They  had  said  that, — 

"  In  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  contingency  to  which  the  Declaration  asks  atten- 
tion as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Conference  to  meet  the 
emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity." 

Under  the  first  resolution  they  divided  ;  under  the  second  they  permitted  minis- 
ters to  unite  themselves  with  either  branch  of  the  Church  :  now  they  want  to  carry 
out  what  they  believe  to  be  right  and  equitable,  in  the  event  of  the  division  for  which 
they  have  thus  prospectively  provided  on  the  single  contingency  of  the  action  of  the 
Southern  conferences.  They  say,  then,  according  to  the  third  resolution,  that  if,  by 
a  vote  of  three-fourths  of  the  members  of  the  annual  conferences,  such  an  alteration 
be  made  in  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  as  will  give  power  to  the  General  Conference  to 
appropriate  the  fund  in  question  to  other  purposes  than  those  indicated  by  the  rule, 
then  a  certain  portion  of  that  fund  is  to  be  distributed  between  the  Methodist 
Church  north  of  the  line  of  division,  and  the  Methodist  Church  south  of  the  line  of 
division.  Then,  when  you  come  to  the  9th  resolution, — because  the  4th,  5th,  6th, 
7th,  and  8th,  are  only  provisions  as  to  the  manner  in  which  this  equitable  distribu- 
tion is  to  be  made, — you  find  it  provided,  that  all  the  property  of  the  Church  in  the 
Southern  section  of  the  Church — in  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  colleges,  schools, 
&c., — shall  belong  absolutely  to  the  Church,  South,  organized  under  the  authority  of 
the  first  resolution.  When  you  come  to  the  12th  resolution  you  find  that  the  action 
of  the  annual  conferences  is  only  to  be  demanded  on  the  3d  resolution — the  changing 
the  sixth  restrictive  article  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  on  no  other  part  of 
the  Plan. 

I  come  now  to  the  third  point,  and  in  arguing  it  I  have  a  right  to  assume,  as 
proved,  these  propositions  : — 1st.  That  the  Conference  of  1844  had  a  right  to  divide 
the  Church,  as  they  did  divide  it,  prospectively,  according  to  the  first  resolution  in 
the  Plan  of  Separation ;  2d.  That  that  division  was  to  depend  alone  upon  the  action 
of  the  Southern  conferences ;  3d.  That  under  that  authority  the  Southern  confer- 


361 

ences  did  act  and  the  Church  was  divided.  Now,  the  question  is,  What  is  to  tie 
done  with  the  property  \  There  were  different  kinds  of  property  belonging  to  the 
Church.  There  was  a  local  property,  such  as  meeting-houses,  colleges,  and  schools  ; 
and  its  locality,  the  division  being  made,  was  to  give  title  to  it  to  the  Church  within 
whose  limits  it  was  located.  There  was  another  kind  of  property — the  property  in 
this  Book  Concern,  amounting  to  about  §750,000,  and  the  chartered  fund.  Unlike 
the  meeting-houses,  parsonages,  and  schools,  which  were  local  property  for  local 
Church  use,  this  was  a  general  property  in  which  all  had  a  usufructuary  interest, 
and  it  came  into  existence  by  the  joint  efforts  of  the  North  and  South.  It  had. 
during  its  existence,  from  first  to  last,  been  administered  by  all  for  the  benefit  of  all. 
That  is  to  be  borne  in  mind.  It  was,  by  express  stipulation  in  the  law  of  the 
Church,  property  held  for  all  alike,  South  and  North.  What  is  the  effect  per  se 
upon  such  a  fund  of  a  constitutional  division  of  the  Church,  to  whom,  as  an  entire 
body,  the  funds  belonged  antecedent  to  the  division  1  Why,  one  who  is  not  astute 
would  be  at  a  loss  to  imagine  any  possible  ground  upon  which  it  can  be  denied,  that  in 
the  case  of  common  property,  belonging  at  first  to  the  whole,  to  which  each  had  the  same 
title,  and  in  which  each  had  the  same  interest,  that  property  must  go  to  each  ratably  in 
the  event  of  a  legal,  constitutional  division  of  the  whole  into  parts.  Why,  it  would  not 
be  honest  if  it  were  otherwise.  I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  these  gentlemen  admit 
they  are  dishonestly  keeping  the  fund, — God  forbid  that  I  should  say  so, — but  they 
say  substantially,  there  is  an  inherent  equity  attaching  itself  to  the  funds  and  belong- 
ing to  each  of  the  two  divisions  into  which  the  association  is  thus  constitutionally 
and  properly  divided,  that  such  fund  shall  belong  ratably  to  each  division.  They 
think  that  in  order  to  carry  out  the  perfectly  equitable  distribution  of  the  fund,  with 
a  view  to  the  protection  of  the  trustees,  who  are  the  holders  of  the  fund,  a  change 
of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  was  necessary.  But  why  did  they  hold  that  it  wa.« 
advisable  to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  article,  in  order  to  be  clothed  with  the 
authority  to  authorize  or  to  direct  the  trustees  to  appropriate  the  fund  ratably  to  the 
two  divisions  of  the  Church  1  I  am  not  left  to  say  that  the  reason  is  obvious,  be- 
cause honour,  and  honesty,  and  justice  demanded  it ;  this  very  Conference  say  so  ; 
the  very  men  who  are  now  holding  the  funds  say  so,  if  they  were  members  of  the 
Conference.  In  the  Plan  of  Separation  they  say, — 

"  In  the  event  of  a  separation,  a  contingency  to  which  the  Declaration  asks  atten- 
tion as  not  improbable,  we  esteem  it  the  duty  of  this  General  Conference  to  meet 
the  emergency  with  Christian  kindness  and  the  strictest  equity." 

Therefore,  annual  conferences,  change  the  sixth  of  the  restrictive  rules,  so  as  to 
allow  us  to  do  it,  and  we  will  pay  to  the  South  what  we  say  in  equity  the  South  is 
entitled  to. 

Having  demonstrated,  as  I  hope,  the  constitutional  authority  to  divide,  exercised 
by  the  passage  of  the  first  resolution  in  the  Plan  of  Division  ;  I  say,  that  looking  to 
the  character  of  the  fund,  the  only  conceivable  ground,  and  the  only  ground  that  has 
been  presented  against  a  division  of  the  fund  is,  that  the  Plan  itself  agrees  to  a  divi- 
sion only  in  the  contingency  of  an  agreement  upon  the  part  of  the  annual  conferences 
to  change  the  sixth  restrictive  rule,  which  applies  to  the  administration  of  the  fund. 
Let  us  see,  as  lawyers  and  as  honest  men,  where  that  would  lead  us,  and  lead  these 
gentlemen,  who  are  undeniably  as  honest  as  others.  A  division  of  the  Church  has 
been  brought  about  constitutionally  ;  that  division,  as  we  contend,  independently  of  the 
particular  mode  provided  in  the  Plan  of  Separation  for  the  division  of  the  fund, 
would  have  given  to  each  of  the  branches  of  the  Church,  organized  under  the  divi- 
sion, a  right,  upon  general  principles  of  equity,  which  a  court  of  equity  will  ad- 


862 

minister,  to  participate  ratably  in  the  fund.  That  is  the  Southern  argument.  The 
other  side  say,  that  as  there  was  provided  in  the  Plan  of  Division  a  mode  of  distri- 
buting the  fund,  that  mode  cannot  be  now  adopted,  because  the  contingency  upon 
which  it  was  to  be  operative  has  not  happened — that  is,  because  the  annual  confer- 
ences did  not  assent  to  the  change  of  the  restrictive  rule,  the  law  of  the  land  is  to 
be  overruled,  the  powers  of  the  Court  are  to  be  limited,  the  principles  of  equity  by 
which  the  Court  is  governed  are  not  to  be  enforced  and  do  not  apply.  Does  it  not 
lead  us  to  these  conclusions  1  You  gentlemen  of  the  Conference  have  tried  to  be 
honest,  but  the  annual  conferences  will  not  permit  you  to  be  honest ;  you  have  en- 
deavoured to  do  equity,  but  the  annual  conferences  will  not  permit  you  to  do  equity  ; 
you  have  brought  about  a  condition  of  things  which,  but  for  your  trying  to  be  honest 
and  endeavouring  to  do  equity,  would  have  made  it  the  duty  of  this  Court  to  make 
you  honest  and  equitable,  but  now  the  powers  of  the  Court  are  gone.  Why,  is 
not  this  absurd  1 

Title  to  a  share  of  this  fund,  under  the  terms  of  the  3d,  4th,  5th,  6th,  7th,  and  8th 
resolutions  of  the  Plan  of  Division,  we  have  not  made  out,  because  that  particular  ap- 
propriation depended  upon  a  change  of  the  sixth  restrictive  article  ;  but  if,  without 
a  change  of  that  article,  a  division  of  the  fund  on  principles  of  equity  entitles  each 
party  to  a  ratable  proportion  of  the  fund,  then  we  make  out  title  because  of  the 
division.  If  we  are  right,  let  us  inquire  how  that  division  was  brought  about.  Our 
friends  on  the  other  side  say  it  exists  in  the  nature  of  an  agreement.  That,  is  a  great 
mistake.  In  the  sense  of  the  term  "  agreement"  which  would  be  applied  to  the 
particular  Plan  of  Separation,  it  was  no  agreement  at  all  which  was  to  be  enforced, 
^w<z-agreement,  through  the  instrumentality  of  any  tribunal  vested  by  the  laws  with 
power  to  enforce  inter  partcs  agreements.  That  division  was  brought  about  by  a 
law  pronounced  by  a  constitutional  body  vested  with  authority  to  legislate  on  the 
subject.  It  operated  of  itself,  and  by  itself  became  of  the  constitution  of  these  two 
Churches,  without  the  aid  of  any  judicial  tribunal,  or  any  general  law  upon  the  sub- 
ject. The  division  authorized  by  the  first  resolution  of  the  Plan  was  a  legislative 
act  made  to  depend  only  upon  the  terms  of  that  act.  If  we  have  succeeded  in 
satisfying  your  Honours  that  the  body  passing  the  resolution  had  a  legislative  right 
to  adopt  it,  then  it  was  a  legislative  act  made  to  depend,  by  the  authority  of  that 
adequate  legislative  power,  for  its  effective  operation  upon  the  single  contingency  of 
the  action  of  the  conferences  in  the  slaveholding  States,  that  being  a  condition,  and 
it  was  eo  instanti  law,  not  agreement.  Now  to  say  that  a  legislative  body  owning, 
in  its  legislative  capacity,  for  the  benefit  of  its  entire  constituency,  property,  and 
authorized  by  its  legislative  power  to  divide  that  constituency  into  two  bodies,  do 
not  give,  by  the  act  of  division,  to  each  of  the  two  bodies  an  equal  right,  according 
to  numbers,  to  participate  in  the  property,  is  to  say  that  the  power  of  dividing  into 
two  is  a  power  which  must  necessarily  work  wrong  and  injustice  to  one.  That 
cannot  be  so. 

May  it  please  your  Honours,  there  rests  here,  in  the  laws  which  you  are  bound 
to  administer,  under  the  chancery  jurisdiction  with  which  you  are  clothed,  coexten- 
sive with  the  entire  English  chancery  jurisdiction,  an  authority  to  see  in  every 
exigency  in  which  man  may  be  placed  towards  each  other  that  justice  is  done. 
If  the  case  can  be  brought  before  you  in  the  form  of  a  case,  within  the  meaning  of 
the  term  "  case,"  as  you  find  it  in  that  part  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
which  devolves  the  judicial  power  upon  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  and  if  the 
present  case  between  the  complainants  and  the  defendants  entitles  the  complainants 
to  relief,  upon  principles  of  equity,  they  must  have  it.  Is  not  that  our  condition  1 
It  was  our  fund  before  1844  as  much  as  the  defendants' ;  it  was  the  proceeds  of  our 


363 

exertions  as  well  as  of  theirs  ;  it  was  our  right  to  participate  in  it  to  the  same  extent 
that  it  was  their  right.  We  have  now,  by  the  body  of  our  mutual  choice,  in  whom 
was  rested  our  entire,  original,  and  inherent  power,  agreed  to  divide  ourselves. 
Then,  the  fund  goes — but  where  1  Suppose  we  had  possession  of  the  fund,  the  North 
would  not  be  entitled  to  it,  if  they  are  right  in  holding  it  now  against  us.  I  could 
prove,  and  by  argument  just  as  strong  as  that  which  has  been  presented  on  the  other 
side,  that  the  Southern  Church  is  the  Methodist  Church,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
term  as  we  have  had  it  from  the  counsel  on  the  other  side.  The  division  has  sprung 
out  of  no  innovation  on  our  part.  We  stood  upon  the  law  of  the  Church  on  the 
particular  point,  slavery,  which  led  to  that  division — that  law  as  was  declared  in  1808, 
1812,  and  1816,  and  re-affirmed  in  1840.  You,  the  defendants,  have  violated  that 
law  ;  you  have  stepped  off  the  platform  ;  you  are  the  seceders,  we  are  the  Church. 
If  the  fund  was  in  our  hands,  precisely  upon  the  same  process  of  reasoning  upon 
which  our  learned  friends  rely,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  exclusive  right  is 
in  the  Northern  branch  of  the  Church,  I  could,  unless  I  mistake  myself,  demonstrate 
that  the  entire  right  was  in  the  Southern  branch  of  the  Church.  But  there  is  a 
fallacy  hi  such  an  argument.  It  does  not  depend  on  the  agreement  to  divide,  if  the 
effect  of  division,  constitutionally  brought  about,  gives  a  right  to  divide  the  fund. 
Can  anything  be  plainer  1 

If  the  constitution  of  this  Church  as  formed  in  1808 — and  I  have  endeavoured  to 
show  the  Court  that  it  substantially  and  almost  in  terms  said  it — had  given  in  so 
many  terms  to  the  Conference  which  might  assemble  in  1844,  in  the  contingency  of 
a  state  of  things  existing  in  1844,  such  as  did  exist,  authority  to  divide  the  Church  ; 
and  it  was  a  part  of  the  same  constitution  that  with  reference  to  this  fund  it  was  to  be 
administered  as  a  fund  belonging  to  one  Church,  could  anybody  doubt  that  each 
branch  would  have  been  entitled  to  a  share  of  the  fund  in  the  event  of  division.  A 
contrary  doctrine  would  make  the  constitution  effect  a  high  moral  wrong. 

I  know  the  tribunal  I  am  addressing.  I  know  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  caution 
such  a  tribunal  against  falling  into  the  error  into  which  the  counsel  on  the  other  side 
have  fallen,  of  confounding  the  right  to  participate  in  this  fund  on  the  part  of  the 
complainants  consequent  on  the  division,  as  a  legal  result  growing  out  of  the  fact 
of  division,  with  the  right  to  participate  in  the  particular  mode  pointed  out  by  the 
Conference  beforehand,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  it  to  divide  the  fund  in  the  event 
of  division.  If  I  had  not  the  declaration  of  these  gentlemen  themselves  in  the  Con- 
ference of  1844,  that  equity  demanded  an  equal  participation  of  the  fund  between 
the  two  branches,  the  words  which  instinctively  dropped  from  the  counsel  would  have 
demonstrated  it.  My  learned  brother  who  spoke  first  on  the  other  side,  devoted 
some  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes  to  the  purpose  of  vindicating  his  clients  against  what 
was,  he  said,  apparently  a  graceless  position,  in  which  they  appeared  to  be  agreeing 
to  divide  the  Church  and  holding  on  to  the  funds.  My  brother  who  followed  him 
yesterday  told  your  Honours,  and  I  have  no  doubt  told  you  what  he  supposed  to  be 
true,  because  he  seemed  to  be  fully  impressed  with  the  equity  on  which  our  com- 
plaint rests,  that  if  time  had  been  allowed  all  would  have  been  right.  Time  can  do 
a  great  many  things  ;  but  if  it  was  able  to  accomplish  the  end  which  we  are  now 
seeking,  through  the  instrumentality  of  a  court  of  justice,  it  was  too  slow  for  the 
wants  of  the  age.  They  divided  in  1844  ;  we  are  now  in  1851.  Seven  years  have 
passed  away,  and  they  still  hold  on  to  the  fund  with  a  grasp  which  threatens,  as  far 
as  depends  on  them,  to  be  perpetual.  Time  seems  to  be  no  remedy.  After  the 
division  was  effected,  were  our  superannuated  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and 
children  to  wait  until  these  gentlemen  could  be  enlightened  as  to  the  existence  of 
their  obligation  of  distributing  the  fund  1  How  long  were  they  to  wait  1  They 


364 

might  hope  on  and  die  while  they  hoped.  Such,  too,  was  the  instinctive  sense  of  the 
justice  of  such  a  division  of  the  fund  here  at  the  North,  that,  although  the  public 
mind  was  to  a  great  extent  poisoned  upon  this  subject,  we  came  within  242  votes 
of  having  such  an  alteration  of  the  sixth  restrictive  rule  as  would  have  made  it  the 
duty  of  the  trustees  to  administer  the  fund ;  and  that  was  an  alteration  which  was  to 
be  sanctioned  by  three-fourths  of  all  those  voting.  We  came  to  the  Conference  of 
1848  at  Pittsburgh,  in  the  person  of  our  commissioners,  appointed  under  one  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Plan  of  Separation,  to  bring  about  an  equitable  division  of  this  fund. 
These  commissioners  wrote  them  a  letter,  dated  Pittsburgh,  May  11,  1848  : — 

"To  the  bishops  and  members  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  General  Conference  assembled. 

"  REV.  AND  DEAR  BRETHREN, — The  undersigned  commissioners  and  appointee  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  respectfully  represent  to  your  body,  that 
pursuant  to  our  appointment,  and  in  obedience  to  specific  instructions,  we  notified 
the  commissioners  and  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of  our  readiness 
to  proceed  to  the  adjustment  of  the  property  question,  according  to  the  Plan  of 
Separation,  adopted  by  the  General  Conference  of  1844.  And  we  furthermore  state 
that  the  chairman  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
informed  us  they  would  not  act  in  the  case,  and  referred  us  to  your  body  for  the 
settlement  of  the  question,  as  to  the  division  of  the  property  and  funds  of  the  Church. 
And,  being  furthermore  instructed  by  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  South,  in  case  of  a  failure  to  settle  with  your  Commissioners, 
to  attend  the  session  of  your  body  in  1848,  for  the  '  settlement  and  adjustment  of  all 
questions  involving  property  and  funds,  which  may  be  pending  between  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,'  we  take  this 
method  of  informing  you  of  our  presence,  and  of  our  readiness  to  attend  to  the  mat- 
ters committed  to  our  trust  and  agency  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South, 
and  we  desire  to  be  informed  as  to  the  time  and  manner  in  which  it  may  suit  your 
views  and  convenience,  to  consummate  with  us  the  division  of  the  property  and  funds 
of  the  Church,  as  provided  for  in  the  Plan  of  Separation,  adopted  with  so  much  una- 
nimity by  the  General  Conference  of  1844." 

What  do  you  suppose  was  the  answer  received  from  that  Conference  then  in 
session  1  No  answer  at  all.  To  this  communication  no  reply  was  received.  But, 
says  my  friend  who  closed  on  the  other  side,  why  do  you  not  wait  1  There  are  two 
modes  in  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  eminent  counsel  who  represent  the  defendants 
in  this  controversy,  this  controversy  might  have  been  avoided.  One  says,  submis- 
sion ;  the  other,  time — wait.  When  did  we  file  this  bill  1  The  letter  which  I  have 
just  read,  was  in  1848.  We  went  almost  in  forma  pauperis,  certainly  in  the  form 
of  Christian  poverty  and  Christian  meekness,  to  ask  the  Conference  to  pay  over  the 
fund.  That  was  May  11,  1848.  To  that  letter,  which  was  signed  by  "A.  L.  P. 
Green,  C.  B.  Parsons,  L.  Pierce,  Commissioners,  John  Early,  Appointee,"  as 
stated  already,  no  reply  was  received.  Here  was  almost  the  last  resort ;  it  has 
failed.  These  Southern  Christians — if  they  can  be  Christians,  being  from  the  sunny 
South,  where  some  seem  to  suppose  there  is  something  in  the  heat  of  the  atmosphere 
that  burns  out  Christianity — had  failed  to  get  what  these  very  Northern  gentlemen 
said  it  was  right,  and  just,  and  proper,  and  equitable  they  should  have  ;  had  failed 
to  get  that  which  almost  three-fourths  of  all  the  annual  conferences  said  they  ought 
to  have  ;  had  failed  to  get  that  which  I  venture  to  say  nine-tenths  of  the  laymen  of 
this  Church  feel,  and  know,  and  say  they  ought  to  have.  Then,  as  that  resort, 
which,  thank  God  never  fails,  they  come  to  a  tribunal  which  is  clothed  with  the  sacred 
office  of  doing  justice  between  man  and  man.  Upon  the  15th  of  June,  1849,  they 
filed  this  bill.  What  indications  were  there  between  the  adjournment  of  the  Con- 
ference of  1848,  and  the  filing  of  this  bill,  which  gave  to  those  whom  I  represent 


365 

the  slightest  reason  to  imagine  that  there  was  to  be  any  justice  done  them — that 
waiting  would  do  any  good  1  Why,  look  to  Proofs  No.  2,  at  the  report  made  by  the 
committee  on  the  state  of  the  Church  in  the  Conference  of  1848,  at  Pittsburgh  ;  see 
if  in  every  line  of  it  the  South  are  not  denounced  as  seceders  and  schismatics.  They 
adjourned  with  the  words  of  censure  upon  their  lips.  No  subsequent  General  Con- 
ference could  be  assembled  until  1852.  The  counsel  who  preceded  me  intimated 
that,  possibly,  if  we  had  delayed  until  the  assembling  of  the  Conference  of  1852, 
such  a  light  would  have  been  shed  upon  the  members  of  the  Conference  who  would 
then  be  convened — the  sense  of  justice  which  animated  them  in  1844,  the  instincts  of 
equity  which  came  from  their  hearts  in  1844,  would  be  so  awakened  again — that  they 
would,  either  cheerfully  or  by  compulsion,  carry  it  out,  by  giving  to  us  that  which 
they  themselves  admitted  to  be  our  right.  Let  those  believe  that  who  can. 

I  pass  to  the  consideration  of  the  fourth  and  last  point,  and  upon  which  I  have  but 
a  very  few  words  to  say.  Suppose  there  was  no  authority  to  divide  constitutionally, 
so  as  to  be  binding  of  itself,  as  a  mere  act  of  constitutional  legislation — or  that  the 
division  was  made  upon  a  condition  hi  relation  to  this  property  which  has  not  been 
fulfilled — are  we  not  still  entitled  to  the  fund  1  What  is  the  attitude  of  the  defend- 
ants! How  does  the  Conference  of  1844  stand  1  These  gentlemen  are  but  the 
successors  of  that  Conference,  in  one  sense.  In  1844  they  told  the  South,  "  Gentle- 
men, a  state  of  things  now  exists  in  the  Church  which,  you  say,  if  we  remain 
together,  will  render  the  Church  in  the  South  useless.  If  our  doctrines  are  acted 
upon  in  the  administration  of  the  Church,  we  believe,  as  you  say,  the  Church  in  the 
South  will  be  annihilated  ;  we  know  that  if  the  doctrines  which  you  claim  to  be  the 
true  doctrines  upon  which  the  Church  should  be  administered  are  right,  and  be 
carried  out,  the  Church  in  the  North  will  be  annihilated.  Now,  we  have  got  power 
to  divide — we  will  divide.  We  cannot  live  together  under  the  same  form  of  govern- 
ment which  has  heretofore  blessed  us,  but  our  objects  are  the  same  ;  the  spread  of  the 
holy  Gospel  is  the  ami  of  each  of  us  ;  the  bringing  of  salvation  to  fallen  man  is  the 
pursuit  of  each  of  us  ;  the  carrying  out  of  the  injunction  of  God  to  preach  unto  all 
nations,  under  the  delegation  of  his  authority,  in  whom  all  power  in  heaven  and  on 
earth  was  vested,  is  upon  each  of  us  ;  and  as  we  have  got  a  right  to  divide,  it  is,  as 
we  think,  under  the  circumstances,  our  duty  to  divide,  to  exist  as  separate  organized 
bodies — we  will  divide."  We  of  the  South,  confiding,  plain,  simple,  and  unenlight- 
ened men — it  is  only  for  the  sake  of  the  argument  I  am  willing  to  admit  it — thought 
here  was  all  sincerity  and  fair-dealing,  honour  and  honesty,  the  promptings  of  a  high 
religious  obligation.  They  divided.  They  go  home  and  organize  themselves  into  a 
separate  Church  ;  and  the  moment  they  do  that,  their  former  Christian  brethren  say, 
"  Now  we  have  gotten  you  off,  we  will  hold  on  to  the  property."  Is  that  honest  ? 
They  have  got  rid  of  us  because  they  said  and  made  us  believe  that  they  concurred 
with  us  in  thinking  there  was  an  authority  to  divide  the  Church,  and  to  share  equally 
in  the  property  of  the  Church. 

A  word  or  two  fell  from  my  learned  brother  who  opened  this  case  on  the  part  of 
the  defendants,  which  sounded  strangely  on  my  ear.  He  said  that  after  some 
personal  inquiry  out  of  the  case,  as  well  as  in  the  case,  as  it  is  disclosed  on  the 
record,  he  thought  there  were  persons  who  voted  for  that  division  under  the  belief 
that  by  the  authority  over  the  fund,  given  by  the  power  to  refuse  to  change  the  sixth 
restrictive  article,  there  was  to  be  found  a  power  to  keep  the  South  hi  the  Church. 
I  am  sure  I  do  not  wish  to  do  that  gentleman,  or  his  clients,  injustice ;  I  hope  that  I 
am  incapable  of  it.  He  said  that  no  member  who  voted  for  the  Plan  of  Separation 
had  any  idea  of  voting  a  division  of  the  Church  ;  that  the  agreement  to  divide  was 
intended  to  prevent  a  division.  In  connexion  with  the  same  argument,  he  suggested 


366 

that  one  of  the  means  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  it  was  to  refuse  to  change 
the  sixth  article.  The  power  of  money  was  to  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  South. 
Now  they  have  got  rid  of  us.  Whether  they  know  it  or  not,  they  ought  to  have 
known  it ;  we  had  told  them  division  was  inevitable  ;  the  bishops  had  said  the 
same  thing ;  the  Church,  almost  with  one  voice,  had  said  the  same  thing.  The 
question  now  is,  whether  by  going  off  with  their  consent,  having  been  seduced  by  their 
asserted  power  to  authorize  it,  it  is  honest,  in  the  consideration  of  a  court  of  equity, 
to  refuse  to  us  any  participation  in  the  fund  1  I  dare  not  trust  myself  to  argue  it.  The 
question  answers  itself. 

Again,  I  want  to  know,  which  is  the  Church  to  whom  this  fund  belongs  1  Are  we 
not  as  much  the  Church  as  they  are  1  "  You  are  not  the  Church,"  say  our  friends, 
"  because  you  have  no  ecclesiastical  dominion  North  of  a  certain  line  ;  the  Church, 
in  the  sense  of  the  term  Church,  covers  the  United  States."  Well,  if  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  is  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  which  covers  the  United 
States  by  territorial  jurisdiction,  where  is  it  to  be  found  1  Neither  have  they  any 
jurisdiction  in  the  South  more  than  we  have  in  the  North.  The  two  sections  have 
destroyed  each  other.  There  is  no  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  if  the  position  of 
our  friends  be  correct.  The  Church  existing  in  1844  had  annual  conferences  in  the 
Southern  States  ?  The  Church  which  existed  in  1848  had  no  annual  conferences  in 
the  South.  If  it  be  a  part  of  your  faith  that  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  shall  have  a  superintendency  over  the  United  States,  and  preside  at  the 
annual  conferences  of  Methodists  in  the  United  States,  then  there  is  no  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  because  your  bishops  cannot  go  to  the  South ;  nobody  there 
admits  their  authority.  What  is  to  be  done  in  this  state  of  things  1  The  Church, 
according  to  your  interpretation  of  the  term  Church,  no  longer  exists  ;  but  the  fund 
exists  ;  who  is  to  hold  it  1  The  trustees  1  They  do  not  pretend  to  have  any  right 
to  it.  For  whom,  then,  are  they  to  hold  it  1  For  those  to  whom  it  original'./ 
belonged.  Who  are  they  1  Who  are  they  1  Travelling,  supernumerary,  and 
superannuated  preachers  and  bishops,  and  their  wives,  widows,  and  children.  You 
bring  them  within  the  class  of  persons  who,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  original 
trust,  are  entitled  to  participate  in  it.  .  If  I  am  right  in  assuming  that,  if  their  doc- 
trine be  correct,  the  Methodist  Church  is  extinguished,  and  no  longer  exists,  then 
there  are  no  travelling,  supernumerary,  or  superannuated  preachers  or  bishops  to 
whom  the  fund  can  be  applied.  The  trustees,  however,  are  to  give  the  benefit  of 
the  fund  to  somebody  ;  keeping  it  for  themselves  is  out  of  the  question.  To  whom, 
then,  in  such  a  case,  is  it  to  go  1  Suppose  it  was  a  trust  fund,  created  by  certain 
original  founders.  Then  it  goes  back  to  the  founders,  if  they  are  living.  The  char- 
ity, to  use  the  language  of  the  law,  has  lapsed  ;  the  interest  in  the  enjoyment  of  the 
fund  by  the  original  founder  is  reinstated  and  revived  ;  he  is  to  have  the  fund  from 
the  trustee  ;  the  trustee  is  not  to  have  the  fund  upon  the  failure  of  the  existence  of 
the  ceslique  trust  to  whom  the  interest  of  the  fund  was  alone  to  be  appropriated. 
Now  the  donors,  or  rather  the  founders,  of  this  fund  were  the  preachers  of  the  origi- 
nal Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  It  is  theirs  or  their  successors'.  Equity,  as  I  suppose, 
as  there  is  to  be  a  division  of  the  fund,  distributes  it  equally  among  the  donors  in  the 
relative  proportion  that  each  has  contributed,  as  compared  with  all.  Then,  if  each  of 
these  donors  living  in  the  South  agrees  that  the  Southern  Church  shall  be  the  trustee 
of  their  part  of  the  fund,  and  the  donors  in  the  North  agree  that  the  Northern  Church 
shall  be  the  custodiary  of  their  proportion  of  the  fund,  the  Court  can  divide  the  fund 
between  the  Church  North  and  the  Church  South,  under  this  bill. 

My  learned  friends  cited  some  books  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  particu- 
lar relief  which  we  ask  for,  under  this  fourth  proposition,  could  not  be  given.  Your 


367 

Honours  are  not  to  be  told  that  it  is  perfectly  immaterial  what  is  the  special  prayer 
of  the  bill.  The  bill  looks  to  such  a  division  of  the  fund  as  the  Plan  of  Separation  of 
the  Church  contemplated.  Where  there  is  a  general  prayer  in  a  bill,  and  a  case 
made  by  the  bill  entitling  to  particular  relief,  but  not  to  the  particular  relief  prayed 
for,  the  Court  can  grant,  under  the  prayer  for  general  relief,  the  particular  relief  to 
which  the  party  shows  he  is  entitled.  It  has  been  so  decided  over  and  over  again. 
The  last  decision  on  the  subject  was  in  the  case,  before  the  United  States'  Supreme 
Court,  of  Taylor  and  The  Merchants'  Insurance  Company  vs.  Baltimore  Insurance, 
where  the  doctrine  which  I  have  laid  down  was  asserted  as  a  familiar  doctrine  of 
equity  pleading, — 9  Han.  Sup.  Court  Rep.,  390. 

May  it  please  your  Honours,  I  am  about  to  leave  the  case,  and  I  shall  do  so  with 
a  word  or  two,  by  way  of  expressing  a  hope,  in  which  I  am  but  cordially  uniting  with 
my  brothers  on  the  other  side,  and  which  I  as  earnestly  entertain,  that  this  contro- 
versy may  be  settled.  To  say  the  least  of  it,  it  does  no  good,  it  has  done  no  good, 
it  can  do  no  good.  The  members  of  this  Church  at  the  North  cannot  desire  as  men, 
as  honest  Christian  men,  to  hold  on  to  this  fund.  The  very  defence  which  their 
counsel  make  for  them  shows  there  would  be  something  in  such  an  act  revolting  to 
each  man's  sense  of  justice.  Is  it,  then,  too  much  to  hope  that  the  government  of 
the  Church,  North,  as  well  as  of  the  Church,  South,  may  be  enlightened  by  the  dis- 
cussion this  case  has  undergone,  and  by  the  decision  which  your  Honours  are  to  pro- 
nounce upon  it  1  Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that  each  will  be  forced  to  see  in  the  state 
of  opinion  in  the  Church  and  out  of  the  Church,  of  all  patriotic  and  Christian  men  of 
every  denomination,  the  necessity  of  being  roused  to  the  consequences  to  result  to 
the  cause  of  religion  itself  from  a  continuance  of  this  unhappy  discussion,  and  be 
awakened  to  the  very  imminent  hazard, — I  am  no  alarmist,  and,  God  knows,  no  dis- 
unionist, — to  the  very  imminent  hazard  to  which  they  subject  the  institutions  which 
we  have  all  so  much  reason  to  prize  1  Is  it  too  much  to  hope  that,  when  they  see 
the  certain  consequences  to  their  "beloved  Zion,"  and  the  possible  consequences  to 
their  country,  which  must  result  from  a  continuance  of  the  strife,  fatal  to  their  posi- 
tion as  men,  and  distressing  to  their  hearts  as  Christians,  that  they  will  be  brought, 
even  in  advance  of  your  Honours'  decision,  or  as  speedily  thereafter  as  can  be,  to 
terminate  this  angry  and  profitless  contest,  and  to  restore,  in  a  spirit  of  fraternal  love, 
to  the  Church  the  Christian  principles  and  spiritual  blessings  which  have  heretofore 
made  it  the  idol  of  its  own  worshippers,  and  the  wonder  and  the  pride  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  1 

His  Honour,  JUDGE  NELSON,  after  consultation  with  JUDGE  BETTS,  said : — 

Some  time  will  probably  elapse  before  the  Court  will  be  able  to  take  up  this  case 
and  give  it  the  examination  which  it  will  deserve  and  require  at  our  hands,  prepara- 
tory to  a  decision  in  the  case.  Our  term  business  is  pressing  upon  us,  and,  so  far  as 
I  myself  am  concerned,  I  shall  be  compelled  very  soon  after  I  leave  this  Court  to  go 
into  another,  where  I  shall  be  engaged  until  mid-summer.  My  associate,  I  have  no 
doubt,  will  be  equally  pressed  in  his  particular  department.  Some  time  will  neces- 
sarily elapse  before  we  shall  be  in  a  condition  to  go  into  a  consultation  and  examina- 
tion of  the  case,  preparatory  to  a  final  decision.  In  the  meantime,  we  cannot  resist 
the  desire  to  express  our  concurrence  in  the  suggestions  that  have  been  made  by  the 
learned  counsel  on  both  sides,  that  it  would  be  much  better  for  the  interests  of  this 
Church,  for  the  interests  of  all  concerned,  if,  after  a  full  and  fair  investigation,  both 
of  the  facts  and  the  law  of  the  case,  the  parties  could  amicably  take  it  up,  and,  by  the 
aid  of  friends  and  counsel,  come  to  an  amicable  decision  of  the  controversy.  In  the 


meantime,  before  the  case  is  finally  taken  up  and  disposed  of  by  the  Court,  we  cannot 
entertain  any  doubt,  that  after  the  full  and  fair  investigation  that  has  taken  place  of 
the  controversy  before  us,  whatever  may  be  our  final  decision  in  the  case,  whether 
upon  the  one  side  or' the  other,  an  amicable,  friendly  adjustment  of  the  controversy 
will  be,  and  must  necessarily  be,  more  satisfactory  to  all  parties  concerned  ;  and  that 
the  good  feeling  and  Christian  fellowship  of  the  different  sections  of  the  Church  will 
be  much  better  by  an  amicable  and  friendly  adjustment  of  this  controversy  than  by 
any  legal  disposition  of  it  by  the  Court. 

We  may  also  add,  perhaps,  that  whatever  may  be,  or  may  have  been,  the  doubts 
entertained  by  the  parties,  or  by  their  learned  counsel,  as  it  respects  the  power  of  the 
agents  who  have  charge  of  the  subject-matter  of  the  controversy  to  make  a  final  and 
legal  disposition  of  this  unfortunate  controversy,  there  can  probably  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  but  that  an  amicable,  and  equitable,  and  honest  adjustment  made  by  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  different  branches  of  the  Church,  with  the  aid  of  their  counsel,  sanc- 
tioned by  the  Court,  would  be  a  binding,  and  valid,  and  final  disposition  of  the  whole 
controversy. 

We  have  deemed  it  our  duty  to  make  these  observations  at  the  close  of  the  argu- 
ment, not  only  from  the  fact  that  there  will  be  necessarily  some  delay  in  the  decision 
of  the  case,  but  in  response  to,  and  in  sympathy  with,  the  suggestions  made  by  the 
teamed  counsel  on  both  sides. 


Extract  from,  7  Ben.  Monroe's  Reports,  p.  507. — (See  p.  289.) 

"  We  come  then  to  the  case  actually  existing,  in  which,  according  to  the  assump- 
tions under  which  we  are  now  considering  the  subject,  the  Church,  instead  of  dividing 
itself  into  '  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North,'  and  '  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,'  leaving  no  residuum  under  the  name  simply  of '  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,'  has  sanctioned  the  independent  organization  of  the  Southern  confer- 
ences, and,  under  that  sanction,  the  Maysville  society  or  congregation  has  been 
placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South.  But  is 
there  any  difference,  so  far  as  the  rights  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Southern  Church  are 
concerned,  between  the  case  as  it  actually  occurred  and  the  supposed  case  of  a 
division  of  the  original  Church  into  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  North,  and  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South  1  Does  the  fact,  that  there  still  remains  a  por- 
tion, whether  small  or  large,  of  the  original  body  under  the  original  name  of  the 
whole,  invalidate  the  separation  or  the  rights  of  the  separating  portion?  Could  the 
remaining  portion  of  the  original  body  re-assert,  in  the  name  of  the  whole,  the  juris- 
diction which  had  been  renounced  by  the  whole,  or  revoke  the  assent  which  the 
whole  body  had  once  given  to  the  independence  of  the  separating  portion  ?  Cer- 
tainly if  the  whole  body  had  power,  by  its  assent  and  co-operation,  to  legalize  the 
separation  and  independence  of  a  part  of  itself,  the  remaining  portion  of  the  original 
body,  though  retaining  the  original  name  of  the  whole,  would  hare  no  power,  after 
such  assent  had  been  given  and  acted  on,  to  undo,  by  its  own  mere  will,  what  the 
entire  body  had  authorized.  Whatever  else  may  be  implied  from  the  identity  of 
name,  it  cannot  give  to  the  present  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  a  jurisdiction  which 
the  original  Church  had  alienated." 


INDEX. 


Page 

Abolition,  its  origin  among  the  Metho- 
dists, (Mr. Lord.) 4 

Abolition,  the  question  of,  considered,  ( Mr. 
Wood.) 323 

Address  of  the  Southern  Delegates  to 
members  of  the  M.  E.  Church  in  slave- 
holding  States  and  Territories,  1844,  ( Mr. 
Lord.) 90 

Adjustment  of  differences,  a  friendly,  re- 
commended, (Mr.  Wood.) 324 

Alabama  Conference,  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions adopted  by,  (Mr.  Lord.) 119 

Andrew,  Bishop,  discretionary  position  of, 
as  exhibited  in  Minutes  of  Conference, 
[Proofs,  p.  124,]  (Mr.  Choate.) 243 

Andrew,  Bishop,  from  his  connexion  with 
slavery,  is  requested  to  desist  from  ac- 
tion as  a  Bishop,  (Mr.  Lord.) 5,  63 

Andrew,  Bishop,  his  case  reviewed,  ( Wood.)  313 
-(Johnson.)  352,  354 


-,  his  connexion  with  sla- 


very, ( Wood.) 312 

Andrew,  Bishop,  his  direct  violation  of  the 
M.  E.  Church  Discipline,  ( Wood.) 314 

Andrew,  Bishop,  his  letter  to  the  Louisville 
Convention,  May,  1845,  (Lord.) 120 

Andrew,  Bishop,  his  name  not  omitted  in 
the  M.  E.  Hymn  Book,  (Lord.) 5 

Andrew,  Bishop,  his  "Pastoral  Address"  to 
the  M.  E.  Church,  1845,  (Lord.) 121 

Andrew,  Bishop,  his  reply  to  Bishop  Soule's 
letter  of  invitation  "  to  perform  episco- 
pal functions,"  (Lord.) 138 

Andrew,  Bishop,  not  a  slaveholder  at  the 
period  of  his  inauguration  to  the  episco- 
pate, (Wood.) 307 

Andrew,  Bishop,  the  case  of,  before  the 
General  Conference  and  Committee  on 
Episcopacy,  (Lord.) 31,  62,  63 

Annual  Conferences —  (See  Conferences.) 

Arguments  by  Defendants'  Counsel  ad- 
verse to  claims  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
South,  (Clwate.) 231 

Arguments  by  Plaintiff's  Counsel  in  sup- 
port of  claims  of  Dr.  Bascom  and  others 
in  slaveholding  States,  &c.,  (Lord.) 149 

Arkansas  Conference,  report  and  resolu- 
tions of,  (Lord.) 109 

Asbury,  Bishop,  ordination  of,  by  Dr.  Coke, 
(Lord.) 32 

Bangs,  Dr.,  and  associate  Commissioners 
M.  E.  Church,  North,  reply  to  communi- 
cation of  Dr.  Bascom,  &c.,  1846,  (Lord.)  145 

Bangs,  Dr.,  and  Northern  Commissioners, 
their  reply  to  Dr.  Bascom  and  others, 
May,  1848,  (Lord.) 104 

Bascom,  Dr.,  his  letter  to  Bishop  Soule,  <tc., 
on  the  Minority  Protest,  1844,  (Lord.) ..  11 

Bascom,  Dr.,  and  others  of  M.  E.  Church, 
South,  communication  to  Northern  Com- 
miasioners  on  division  of  funds,  &c., 
1846,  (Lord.) 143 

24 


P»ge 

Bascom,  Dr.,  his  report  in  the  matter  of  the 
Westmoreland  Circuit,  1840,  (Johnson.)  357 

Bascom,  Dr.,  and  Southern  Commissioners, 
letter  to  Messrs.  Bangs,  Peck,  and  Fin- 
ley,  1848,  (Lord.) 104 

Beneficiaries  of  M.  E.  Church,  their  rights 
considered,  (Lord.) 150 

Bascom,  Dr.  (Wood.) 298 

Bishop,  office  of  a,  considered,  (Johnson.)    353 

Bishops,  address  of  the,  to  Baltimore  Con- 
ference on  subject  of  slavery — Extract, 
(Lord.) 50 

Bishops,  duties,  regulations  for,  1792, 1804, 
(Lord.) 34 

Bishops  of  M.  E.  Church,  conduct  of,  sub- 
ject to  consistorial  investigation,  (Lord.)  5 

Bishops  of  M.  E.  Church  never  slaveholders 
till  the  instance  of  Bp.  Andrew,  ( Wood.)  307 

Bishops,  letter  of  the,  to  General  Confer- 
ence, 1844,  on  case  of  Bishop  Andrew, 
(Lord.) 64 

Bishops  should  not  be  slaveholders,  special 
objections  why,  ( TI 'ood.) 310 

Bishops  and  Presbyters,  Mr.  Wesley's 
opinion  of  their  qualities  and  powers, 
(Lord.) 30 

Book  Concern,  1800,  duties  and  regulations 
for  government  of  Superintendent  and 
Book-Stewards,  (Lord.) 26 

Book  Concern,  distribution  of  profits  aris- 
ing from,  1804,  (Lord.) 27 

Book  Concern,  capital  and  profits  emanat- 
ing from,  (Lord.) 2, 152,  155 

Book  Concern,  funds  of  the,  not  to  be  di- 
verted from  their  original  purposes, 
( Wood.) 298,  302 

Book  Concern  held  in  trust  only,  and  for 
special  purposes  and  designs,  (Choate.).  231 

Book  Concern,  origin  and  history  of  the, 
(Lord.) 1 

Book  Concern,  portion  of  profits  of  the,  ren- 
dered to  Canada  Conference  on  their  se- 
paration from  the  United  States  Confer- 
ence, (Lord.) 16S 

Book  Concern,  distribution  of  profits  ac- 
cruing from,  (Lord.) 155,  203 

Book  Concern  (Choate.) 2S5 

British  Conference,  address  of  the,  to  the 
General  Conference,  United  States,  on 
subject  of  slavery— Extract,  (Wood.) . ..  308 

Canada  claims,  Minutes  of  Committee  on, 

1836,  (Lord.) '. 39 

Canada  Conference,  letter  of  the,  to  their 

American  brethren,  1833,  (Lord.) 42 

Canadian  Methodists,  their  prayer  for  se- 
paration from  the  United  States' General 

Conference,  considered,  (Lord.) 36 

(Clioate.) 280 

(Wood.)  ...  320,  343 

Canadian  Methodists,  their  separation  from 
the  government  of  the  United  States 
M.  E.  Church,  (Lord.) 1GG-168,  170 


370 


INDEX. 


Page 

Capers,  Dr.,  his  motion  and  plan  of  special 
jurisdiction  for  a  Northern  and  Southern 
General  Conference,  (Lord.) 67 

Carolina,  North,  Conference,  report  and 
resolutions  of,  (Lord.) 112 

Carolina,  Bouth,  Conference,  preamble,  &c., 
adopted  by,  (Lord.) 113 

Change  of  organization  in  M.  E.  Church, 
under  what  circumstances  permissible, 
(Johnson.) 332 

"  Charitable  Uses,"  law  of,  denned,  ( Wood.)  292 

Church,  M.  E.,  doctrines  of,  cases  cited  in 
support  of  adherence  to,  ( Wood.) 312 

Church,  M.  E.,  final  report  of  state  of  the, 
(Fancher.) 219 

Church,  M.  E.,  North,  their  answer  to  the 
judicial  citation  by  their  Southern  breth- 
ren, (Lord.) 13 

Church,  M.  E.  not  empowered  to  author- 
ize separation  or  division  of  funds, 

(Choate,) 290 

( Wood.)  302 

Church,  M.  E.,  organization  of  the,  South, 
decided  as  unconstitutional  by  the  North- 
ern Commissioners,  (Lord.) 7 

Church,  M.  E.,  origin  of,  extract  from  Bp. 
Emory's  History  of,  (Lord.) 32 

Church,  M.  E.,  plan  of  separation  of  the 
Northern  and  Southern,  presented,  dis- 
cussed, and  adopt«d,  1844,  (Lord.) 6 

Church,  M.  E.,  regulations  of  the,  for  re- 
ception of  Preachers  from  Wesleyan  and 
other  Connexions,  1840,  (Lord.) 165 

Church,  M.  E.,  amicable  separation  of  the 

•  American  from  that  of  Great  Britain, 
1784,  (Lord.) 164,  165 

Church,  M.  E.,  South,  biil  of  the,  against 
the  Northern  M.  E.  Church,  (Lord.) 8 

Church,  M.  E.,  Unity,  the  great  law  of 
the,  ( Choate.) 264 

Church  and  government  of  the  Church 
distinguished,  (Johnson.) 335 

Church  union,  importance  and  necessity  of 
enforcing  and  preserving,  ( Wood.) 313 

Claim,  relative  and  proportionate,  of  the 
Plaintiffs,  ( Wood.) 291,  292,  300 

Climatic  difference,  a  ground  for  division  or 
separation  from  Parent  Church,  (Lord.)  176 

Coke,  Dr.  T.,  appointed  first  Bishop  of 
American  M.  E.  Church,  by  Mr.  Wesley, 
(Lord.) 32 

Coke,  Dr.  T.,  resolutions  in  the  matter 
of  slavery,  by  the  Church,  under  the  ad- 
ministration of,  (Johnson.) 351 

Commissioners,  Northern,  for  treatingwith 
the  Southern  M.  E.  Church,  (Lord.) 185 

Commissioners,  Southern,  report  of  Finance 
Committee,  Petersburg  Conference,  1846, 
in  reference  to  appointment  of,  for  set- 
tlement of  their  claims  on  the  Northern 
Church,  (Lord.) 103 

Committee  on  Separation,  resolutions  of, 
adopted  by  Tennessee  Conf.,  (Lard.)  . ..  105 

Conference,  the,  1784  to  1808,  powers,  Ac., 
of,  examined,  (Johnson.) 328,  334 

Conference,  the,  1784,  its  special  creation, 
(Choate.) 267 

Conference,  the  Breakwater,  case  of  F.  A. 
Harding,  1844,  (Lord.) 67 

Conference,  the  first  General,  convened  in 
Unitod  States,  1792,  (Choate.) 272 

Conference,  the  General,  powers  of  the, 

(Johnson.) 209 

(Fancher.)  209 

Conference,  the  General,  Limitations  of 
the,  (Johnson.) 335 

Conference,  General,  power  of  the,  to  con- 
sent to  a  division  of  M.  E.  Church  into 
two  bodies,  (Lord.) 162,  163 

Conference,  (Choate.) 265 


Pftge 

Conference,  General,  of  1824,  its  power  to 
adopt  plan  of  division  examined  and 
maintained,  (Lord.)  326,  360 

Conference,  General,  1848,  proceedings  of 
the,  reviewed,  ( Choate.) 282 

Conference,  General,  1848,  resolutions  of, 
cited,  (Wood.) 324 

Conference,  General,  vote  of,  in  matter  of 
Bp.  Andrew,  ( Choate.) 243 

Conference,  the  Holston,  resolutions  of,  in 
support  of  Bishops  Andrew  and  Soule, 
1845,  (Lord.) 96 

Conferences,  Annual,  of  M.  E.  Church, 
their  nature  and  functions,  (Lord.) 2 

Conference,  change  of  organization  in, 
1808,  (Lord.) 3 

Conference,  division  of,  proposed,  and 
power  of,  by  select  Committee  of  Gen- 
eral Conference,  (Lord.) 87,  88 

Conference,  General,  their  origin  and  func- 
tions, (Lord.) 3 

Conference,  General  and  Annual,  powers, 
<tc.,  of,  1792  to  1836,  (Lord.) 33,  177 

Conference,  General,  journals  of  the,  1840, 

1844,  and  1848,  mutually  admitted  as 
evidence,  (Lord.) 23 

Conferences  of  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Hol- 
ston, and  Tennessee,  action  of  the,  1845, 
(Lord.) 140 

Conferences,  Southern,  1844,  action  of  the, 
in  the  case  of  Bp.  Andrew,  (Lord.).. .  92-94 

Conferences,  Southern,  action  of  various, 

1845,  in  favour  of  separation  from  Gen- 
eral Conference,  (Lord.) 97 

Controversial  differences,  evil  tendencies 
of,  (Wood.) 292 

Cooper,  Ezekiel,  his  letter  to  General  Con- 
ference, 1818,  showing  how  the  capital 
funds  accrued,  (Fancher.) 227 

Degradation  from  Episcopal  functions  con- 
sidered, (Lord.) 197 

Difference  in  the  M.  E.  Church,  not  on 
fundamental  doctrines,  but  on  the  ques- 
tion of  right  of  property,  (  Wood.) 301 

Discipline,  Book  of  the,  "for  1840,  to  be 
considered  as  evidence  by  mutual  agree- 
ment, (Lord.) 25 

Discipline  of  M.  E.  Church,  change  of 
form  in  the,  1787,  (Lord.) 32 

Discipline  of  M.  E:  Church,  customary 
republication  of,  after  every  General 
Conference,  (Lord.) 5 

Discipline  of  M.  E.  Church,  important 
character  of  the — quoted,  (Lord.) 164 

Discipline,  Bishop  Emory's  History  of  the, 
passages  quoted  by,  (Lord.) 30 

Discipline,  1840,  extracts  from,  cited  by 
Plaintiffs'  Counsel,  (Lord.) 28 

Discipline,  the  publication  of  a  Book  of, 
by  the  Southern  Conference,  regarded 
as  a  distinct  and  separate  organization, 
(Lord.) 7 

Discount  compensation,  always  regulated 
by  General  Conference,  (Fancher.) 228 

Division  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
even  by  consent  of  Conference,  would 
be  unauthorized  by  ecclesiastical  law, 
(Choate.) 261 

Division  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  how  to  have 
been  avoided,  (Johnson.) 3,  53 

Division  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  want  of  gen- 
eral agreement  to,  a  bar  to  all  claims 
on  funds  and  property  of  such  Church, 
(Wood.) 306 

Division  of  the  M.  E.  Church  impracticable, 
unless  authorized  by  the  Annual  Confer- 
ences, ( Wood.) 316,  318,  321,  322 

Division  of  the  M.  E.  Church  not  the  result 
of  moral  necessity,  ( Choate.) 235 


INDEX. 


371 


Page 

Division  of  the  M.  E.  Church  occasioned  by 
the  proceedings  in  Conference  of  1844,  in 
the  matter  of  Bp.  Andrew,  (Choate.)  235,236 
Division,  plan  of,  1844— analyzed,  (John- 
son.)    338 

Division  of  profits  of  M.  E.  Book  Concern, 
examined,  (Johnson.) 361 

Early,  Rev.  Jno.,  appointed  General  Agent 
of  M.  E.  Church,  South,  by  their  Confer- 
ence, Virginia,  1846,  (Lord.) 103 

Emory,  Dr.,  passages  quoted  from  his  His- 
tory of  Discipline,  (Lord.) 30 

Emory,  Dr.,  particulars  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern, from,  (Lord.) '. . . .  153 

Equity  of  the  Plaintiffs'  case  examined, 
(Clwate.) 258 

Florida  Conference,  report  adopted  by  the, 
(Lord.) 118 

Forfeiture,  the  implication  and  bearing  of 
this  term  considered,  (Lord. ) 188 

Fund,  beneficiary,  of  M.  E.  Church,  its 
character,  Ac.,  examined,  (Lord.)..  151,  159 

Fund,  beneficiary,  of  M.  E.  Church,  inten- 
tion of  founders  of,  (Lord.) 156, 157 

Fund,  beneficiary,  incapacity  of  the  M. 
E.  Church  to  make  a  division  of  same 
(Wood.) 318 

Fund,  beneficiary,  method  of  augmenta- 
tion of,  (Lord.) 156 

Fund,  beneficiary,  regarded  as  a  sacred 
trust  by  the  M.  E.  Church,  (Lord.) 158 

Fund,  beneficiary,  division  of,  whether 
contemplated  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence, 1844,  (Lord.) 184 

Fund  chartered,  its  origin  and  intentions, 
(Lord.) 155 

General  grounds  of  the  Plaintiffs'  claims 
to  separation,  division  of  profits,  <fcc., 
( Johnson.) 348 

Georgia  Conference,  preamble  and  resolu- 
tions adopted  by,  (Lord.) 115 

Green,  Eev.  A.  L.  P.,  and  associate  Commis- 
sioners, M.  E.  Church,  South,  letter  to 
General  Conference,  1848,  (Lord.) 146 

Griffith,  Rev.  Mr.,  his  position  before  and 
after  the  Conferences  of  1840  and  1844, 
(Johnfon.) 350 

Harding,  Rev.  F.  A.,  his  case  examined, 

(Choate.) 241 

( Wood.) 311 

Harding,  Rev.  F.  A.,  and  Bp.  Andrew,  the 
judgments  on,  considered,  (Johnson.)  ..  356 

Hymn  Book  and  Discipline,  customary  re- 
publication  of,  after  every  General  Con- 
ference, (Lord.) 5 

Indian  Mission  Conference,  resolutions 
adopted  by  the,  (Lord.) 115 

Institution  of  M.  E.  Church,  its  objects  and 
intents  inquired  into,  ( Wood.) 313 

Itinerant  Superintendency  of  Bishops  of 
M.  E.  Church,  (Choate.) 255,  257 

Judges  Xelson  and  Belts,  their  recommen- 
dation of  an  amicable  adjustment  of  the 
question  at  issue 367 

Maryland,  extract  from  Dorsey's  Laws  of, 

1831,  (Lord.) 60,  61 

Maryland,  slavery  laws  of,  extract,  (Lord.)    59 
Maysville   case,   extracts    from    decision. 

Court  of  Appeals,  Kentucky,  (Lord.) 206 

Maysville  case,  extracts  from,  (  Wood.). ..  298 

1  (Johnson.)    347 

Memphis  Conference,  reference  to  proceed- 
ings of,  (Lord.) 106 


Methodism  of  United  States,  its  early  de- 
termination to  be  one  Church,  (Choate.)  275 

Methodism,  its  wide-spread  existence  in 
United  States,  ( Clioate.) 278 

Methodism,  its  character  and  position  in 
1844,  (Johnson.) 326 

M.  E.  Church,  an  enterprise  of  missions, 
(Choate.) 279 

M.E.  Church,  i ts creation  in  1784, (Choate.)  266 

M.  E.  Church,  never  had  a  slaveholding 
Bishop  till  the  instance  of  Bp.  Andrew, 
( Wood. ) 307 

M.  E.  Church,  unity  the  great  law  of  the, 
(Choate.) 264 

Methodists  of  Canada,  their  petition  in 
1827,  for  separation  from  the  M.  E.  Church 
of  the  United  States,  (Lord.) 35 

Mississippi  Conference,  preamble  and  re- 
solutions of,  (Lord.) 108 

Morris,  Bp.,  letter  of,  to  Rev.  W.  8.  M'Mur- 
ray,  with  reasons  for  declining  invitation 
to  attend  the  Missouri  Conference,  1845, 
(Lord.) 141 

Organization  of  Southern  separate  Confer- 
ences, report  of  Committee  on,  (Lord.) .  123 

Plaintiffs'  "Right "to  relative  proportion 
of  funds  of  M.  E.  Church,  examined, 
( Wood. ) 292 

Plaintiffs'  "Right"  not  supported  by  law 
or  equity,  ( Wood.) 324 

Points  of  Claimants,  as  sustaining  their 
grounds  of  action,  (Lord.) 148 

Points  of  Defendants,  on  which  their  re- 
sistance is  established,  (Fandter.) 230 

Preachers,  M.  E.,  their  fields  of  labour, 
( Choate. ) 2.54 

Preachers,  travelling,  are  Bishops  to  be 
considered  as,  ( Choate.) 251 

Preachers,  travelling,  reasons  for  distinc- 
tion between  the  official  duties,  Ac.,  of, 
( Choate.) 254 

Preachers,  travelling,  rights  and  functions 
of,  i  Choate.) 287 

Private  trusts  and  public  uses  distinguish- 
ed, ( Wood.) 294 

Property,  accumulated,  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
its  founders  and  guardians,  (  Wood.) 295 

Protest,  ground  of  the,  defined,  (Choate.) .  250 

of  minority  of  General  Conference, 

1844,  against  action  in  the  case  of  Bp. 
Andrew,  (Lord.) 69 

Protest  of  minority,  reply  to  the,  by  the 
Committee  of  Northern  Church,  (Lord.)  77 

Protest  and  Reply,  particulars  of,  reviewed, 
(Lord.) 199 

Recapitulation  of  Plaintiffs'  case,  (Johnson.)  361 

Regret,  expressions  of,  by  various  Southern 
Churches  on  "the  violent  proceedings 
against  Bishops,"  Ac.,  ( Choate.) ....  233 

Reply  of  the  General  Conference,  United 
States,  to  the  British  Conference  on  sub- 
ject of  slavery,  cited,  ( Wood.) 309 

Report  of  Committee  on  Division,  Kentucky 
Conference,  1844,  (Lord.) 92 

Report  of  Committe  on  Westmoreland  Pe- 
tition, 1840,  on  "Ministerial  restric- 
tions," (Lord.) 54 

Report  of  Committee  on  Separation,  Hol- 
ston  Conference,  1845,  (Lord.) 95 

Restrictive  rules,  origin  and  effects  of, 
(Lord.) 3 

Restrictive  rules,  sixth  artic'e  of  only  to 
be  altered  by  a  vote  of  three-fourths  of 
the  Annual  Conferences,  (  Wood.) 315 

Restrictive  rules,  various  a  tenitions  in, 
1828,  1832,  1836,  1840,  (Lord.)  43,  178 


372 


INDEX. 


Page 

Secession  of  members  from  a  General 
Church  disqualifies  all  claim  on  the 
property  of  such  Church,  ( Wood.) 305 

Secession  of  Southern  M.  E.  Church  self- 
authorized,  ( ChoaU.) 259,  260 

Separation  of  American  M.  K.  Church  from 
that  of  Great  Britain,  ( Choate.) 263 

Separation  of  M.  E.  Church,  incapacity 
of  General  Conference  to  sanction  a, 
( Choate.) 260 

Separation  of  M.  E.  Church  not  sustained  by 
the  number  of  votes  required,  (ChoaU.)  146 

Separation  of  M.  E.  Church  a  nullity  in 
ecclesiastical  law,  even  if  sanctioned  by 
General  Conference,  ( ChoaU.) 261 

Separation  of  M.  E.  Church,  plan  of  the,  its 
validity  and  effects.  (Lord.) 179 

Separation  of  M.  E.  Church,  plan  of  the,  ex- 
amination of,  ( ChoaU.) 289 

( Wood.) 323 

(Johnson.) 360 

Separation  of  M.  E.  Church,  plan  of  the,  in- 
fractions of  the,  (Itincher.) 213 

Separation,  the,  by  the  Southern  M.  E. 
Church,  unsanctioned  by  General  Con- 
ference, a  virtual  abandonment  of  all 
claim  on  the  great  body  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  ( Wood.) 303 

Slaveholders  especially  prohibited  from  ad- 
mission to  membership  of  M.  E.  Church, 
(Johnton.) 333 

Slavery,  early  rules  of  Methodist  Church 
with  regard  to,  (Lord.) 4, 189 

Slavery,  extract  from  address  of  British 
Conference,  1840,  on  subject  of,  (Lord.)  53 

Slavery,  extract  from  Baltimore  General 
Conference,  1840,  on  subject  ot,  (Lord.).  53 

Slavery,  laws  of,  in  Maryland,  cited, 
(Lord.) 50,  CO 

Slavery,  necessity  for  its  extirpation  as  con- 
sidered, 1796, 1800, 1804, 1808, 1812, 1816, 
1820,  1824,  1840,  1844,  (Lord.) 46-49 

Slavery,  not  the  subject  of  action  on  the 
part  of  Missionary  Preachers,  (Lord.) ..  106 

Slavery,  petitions  and  memorials  respect- 
ing, from  New-England  and  Baltimore 
Conferences,  1840,  (Lord.) 192 


Ttgo 

Slavery  Question,  the,  as  agitated  in  the 
different  Conferences,  General,  Quarter- 
ly, and  Annual,  (Johnson.) 349 

Slavery  Question,  as  treated  in  Baltimore 
Conference,  1784,  (Lord.) 45 

Slavery  Question,  the,  treated  in  "Disci- 
pline," 1840,  (Lord.) 44 

Slavery  Question,  the,  to  be  treated  by  the 
general  M.  E.  Church  only  on  established 
principle  and  usage,  ( Wood.) 306 

Slavery,  regarded  as  to  its  peculiar  aspects, 
difficulties,  Ac.,  (Lord.) 176 

Slavery  viewed  as  an  evil  by  the  M.  E. 
Church,  North  and  South,  (Lord.)  ...  4,  190 

Soule,  Bp.,  his  address  to  the  Southern 
Convention,  1845,  (Lord.) 99 

Soule,  Bp.,  his  "letter  of  adhesion"  to  the 
Louisville  Convention,  1845,  (Lord.) 120 

Soule,  Bp.,  his  "letter  of  invitation"  to 
Bp.  Andrew  to  perform  episcopal  func- 
tions, (Lord.) 137 

Southern  Convention,  action  of  the,  on 
"Separate  Organization,"  1845,  (Lord.)  100 

Speech,  opening,  on  behalf  of  the  Defend- 
ants, (Choate.) 231 

Supernumeraries,  conditions  and  duties  of, 
denned,  (Choate.) 287 

Tennessee  Conference,  preamble  and  reso- 
lutions adopted  by,  (Lord.) 142 

Trusts,  administrative  and  specific,  distinc- 
tions between,  (Lord.) 150 

Texas  Conference,  report  and  resolutions 
adopted  by,  (Lord.) 118 

Unity  the  great  law  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
(Choate.) 264 

Virginia  Conference,  resolutions  adopted 
by,  (Lord.) 110 

Wesley,  Rev.  J.,  sketch  of  his  character  as 
the  founder  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  (John- 
son.)    327 


55TH  CONGRESS,  )  SENATE.  (  EEPOBT 

2d  Session.       J  {  No.  1416. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 


JULY  8,  1898.— Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  TELLER,  from  the  Committee  on  Claims,  submitted  the  following 

REPORT. 

[To  accompany  Senate  Res.  No.  382.] 

On  the  9th  day  of  June,  1898,  the  Senate  adopted  the  following 
resolution : 

Rexolred,  That  the  Committee  on  Claims  be  directed  to  inquire  and  report  to  whom 
the  money  was  paid  under  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  Sonth,  and  also 
as  to  all  circumstances  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  bill  providing  for  the  pay- 
ment of  said  claim  and  with  the  subsequent  payment  of  the  money  under  said  act 
of  Congress. 

In  accordance  with  the  instructions  herein  contained  the  Senate  Com- 
mittee on  Claims  has  made  an  investigation,  by  the  examination  of 
witnesses  and  otherwise,  and  beg  leave  to  report  as  follows: 

The  committee  find  that  the  act  "for  the  relief  of  the  Book  Agents 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,"  approved  March  11,  1898, 
was  promptly  carried  out  by  the  payment  to  these  agents  (Messrs.  Bar- 
bee  and  Smith)  of  the  sum  of  8-88,000  in  a- draft  from  the  Treasury 
Department.  They  admit  the  receipt  ol  this  amount  on  the  21st  day  of 
March,  and  the  next  day  the  sum  of  $'00,800,  or  35  per  cent  of  the 
whole  sum,  was  paid  to  E.  B.  Stahlman,  as  an  attorney,  for  services  ren- 
dered in  connection  with  the  collection  of  the  clai.n  in  accordance  with 
an  agreement  made  in  July,  1895.  The  residue  of  the  amount  was 
invested  by  the  book  agents  for  the  benefit  of  the  publishing  house 
fund. 

The  testimony  before  the  committee  clearly  shows  that  no  part  of 
the  sum  received  by  Mr.  Stahlmau  was  paid  to  Messrs.  Barbee  & 
Smith  for  their  personal  use,  or  to  any  Senator  or  Representative  in 
Congress,  or  to  any  other  persons  for  corrupt  purposes.  Mr.  Stahlmau 
has  exhibited  to  the  committee  a  statement  of  the  disbursement  of  the 
entire  sum  received  by  him,  which  it  is  not  necessary  to  publish ;  its 
examination,  however,  in  connection  with  the  testimony,  shows  that 
the  money  was  all  used  by  him  personally  except  about  $12,500  which 
was  paid  to  other  attorneys  for  professional  services  rendered  in  this 
and  other  cases. 

The  testim  uy  taken  by  the  committee  discloses  the  following  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  passage  of  the  act  and  the  history  of  the 
claim. 


II  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

The  following  contract  was  entered  into  between  the  book  agents 
and  E.  B.  Stahlman,  with  reference  to  the  collection  of  the  claim  of 
the  Methodist  Publishing  House  against  the  United  States. 

Articles  of  agreement  between  Barbee  <$•  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  South,  and  E.  B.  Stahlman. 

Witness:  First.  That  we,  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  South,  do  hereby  give  power  of  attorney  to  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  to  prose- 
cute onr  claim  before  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  for  the  use  and  abuse  of 
the  publishing  house  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  by  the  armies  of  the 
United  States  during  the  war  between  the  States  from  A.  D.  1861  to  1865. 

Second.  We,  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
South,  do  hereby  agree  that  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlraan  shall  receive  as  compensation 
for  his  services  35  per  cent  of  whatever  sum  shall  be  collected  from  the  United  States 
for  the  liquidation  of  the  aforesaid  claim. 

Third.  It  is  hereby  agreed  between  Barbee  &.  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  E.  B.  Stahlmau,  party  of  the 
second  part,  that  should  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  make  no  appropriation 
for  the  liquidation  of  the  aforesaid  claim,  then,  in  that  case,  uo  compensation  shall 
be  paid  to  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  for  his  services,  from  any  source  whatever,  and  he 
shall  have  no  recourse  upon  us  or  our  successors  in  office  forever. 

Fourth.  We,  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
South,  do  hereby  agree  and  covenant  that  this  power  of  attorney  herein  and  hereby 
conveyed  to  the  aforesaid  E.  B.  Stahlman  shall  continue  in  full  force  and  effect  until 
the  final  adjournment  of  the  Fifty-fifth  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

BAKBEE  &  SMITH, 
Book  Agents  M.  E.  Church  South. 
E.  B.  STAHLMAN. 

When  this  contract  was  made  there  was  a  positive  understanding 
between  the  parties  that  all  information  of  its  existence  should  be 
withheld  and  kept  secret,  and  this  policy  was  insisted  upon  by  Mr. 
Stahlman,  because  he  realized  that  an  agreement  to  pay  a  large  amount 
of  the  money  to  be  recovered  to  a  claim  agent  or  attorney  would 
prejudice  the  claim  were  it  generally  known  that  such  an  agreement 
was  in  existence.  This  understanding  was  faithfully  maintained,  and 
up  to  the  time  when  the  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  publishing  house 
came  before  the  Senate  for  final  action  the  book  agents  and  their 
attorney,  Mr.  Stahlmau,  in  conversations  and  correspondence  with  Sen- 
ators and  Representatives  concealed  from  them  all  knowledge  of  the 
existence  of  a  contract,  withheld  from  them  all  information  regarding 
it,  and  purposely  and  willfully,  by  misleading,  if  not  false,  statements, 
impressed  them  with  the  belief  that  Mr.  Stahlman  was  not  acting  as 
the  agent  and  attorney  of  the  book  agents  with  the  expectation  of  a 
pecuniary  remuneration  for  his  services  and  efforts,  but  as  a  personal 
friend  of  the  book  agents,  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  South,  and  an  earnest  advocate  of  the  claim,  without  expecta- 
tion of  fee  or  compensation. 

During  the  week  before  the  bill  passed  rumors  were  current  in  the 
Senate  that  a  contract  existed  between  the  book  agents  and  Mr.  Stahl- 
man, whereby  the  latter  was  to  receive  a  large  amount  and  exorbitant 
fee  for  services  rendered  by  him  in  connection  with  its  passage,  and  a 
number  of  Senators  applied  to  the  book  agents,  Barbee  &  Smith,  and 
Mr.  Stahlmau  to  ascertain  the  facts  in  the  case.  Some  of  these  Sen- 
ators saw  Mr.  Stahlman  in  person  and  received  from  him  assurances 
in  positive  language  that  left  them  under  the  impression  that  no  con- 
tract whatever  existed  between  him  and  the  book  agents  relating  to  a 
fee.  Mr.  Stahlman  admits  that  he  intended  that  they  should  receive 
this  impression  from  what  he  said;  and  a  fair  interpretation  of  his 
words  meant  that  there  was  no  contract  and  that  he  was  not  interested 


METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  Ill 

in  the  case  on  account  of  a  money  consideration.  They  were  deceived 
and  misled,  and  the  deception  was  willful  and  deliberate  on  Mr.  Stahl- 
mau's  part. 

Two  Senators  communicated  with  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith — one 
by  letter,  the  other  by  telegram — informing  them  of  the  rumor  and 
seeking  the  truth.  The  book  agents  authorized  these  Senators  to 
deny  the  report;  and,  having  absolute  confidence  in  the  candor  and 
integrity  of  these  gentlemen,  Senators  accepted  their  telegrams  as  frank 
and  honest,  and  assurances  based  on  them  were  made  that  there  was 
no  foundation  for  the  report  of  an  agreement  to  pay  a  large  proportion 
of  the  proposed  appropriation  to  a  claim  agent  or  attorney.  No  candid 
man  who  examines  this  correspondence  can  reach  any  other  conclusion 
than  that  the  subject  of  the  inquiry  was  the  existence  of  such  a  contract 
and  not  the  percentage  that  an  attorney  was  tb  receive.  The  replies  of 
the  book  agents  to  this  letter  and  telegram  make  it  manifest  that  the 
policy  of  silence  with  reference  to  the  contracts  was  maintained  to  the 
end,  even  to  the  extent  of  withholding  the  truth  and  misleading  and 
deceiving  those  who  made  an  earnest  effort  to  obtain  it. 

If  these  denials  of  the  existence  of  a  contract  had  not  been  made  to 
the  Senate  from  a  source  which  was  entitled  to  entire  credit  the  bill 
would  not  have  been  passed  by  the  Senate,  unless  it  had  been  so 
amended  as  to  protect  the  beneficiaries  from  what  many  Senators 
regard  as  a  waste  and  improper  use  of  the  fund  by  the  payment  of  an 
excessive  and  unreasonable  fee.  Such  an  amendment  was  within  the 
power  of  the  Senate,  and  one  would  have  been  adopted  in  the  nature  of 
a  condition  that  the  United  States  would  recognize  and  pay  this  claim, 
provided  that  the  fruits  of  it  were  to  actually  go  to  the  beneficiaries  of 
the  fund  that  had  suffered  by  the  taking  of  the  property  by  the  United 
States  during  the  war.  The  book  agents  could  have  accepted  or 
rejected  the  settlement  with  this  condition  attached,  and  they  would 
have  doubtless  had  the  opportunity  to  do  so  but  for  the  misleading 
replies  sent  to  Senators  who  made  inquiry  about  the  contract. 

The  book  agents  and  Mr.  Stahlman  insist  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the 
Senate  to  consider  the  claim  on  its  merits,  and  that  the  Senate  had  no 
right  to  inquire  as  to  the  amount  of  fees  to  be  paid,  and  therefore  they 
might  properly  refuse  to  give  the  facts  concerning  the  contract  with 
Mr.  Stahlman.  If  they  had  taken  that  position  and  declined  to  say 
whether  there  was  a  contract  or  not,  the  case  would  have  been  a  very 
different  one  from  that  presented.  A  refusal  on  their  part  to  say  what 
the  contract  was,  on  the  ground  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to  inquire, 
would  have  put  the  Senate  on  notice  that  a  contract  of  some  sort  was  in 
existence,  and  if  the  Senate  had  not  then  taken  steps  to  secure  a  proper 
application  of  the  money  to  be  appropriated,  the  fault  would  have  been 
with  the  Senate;  but  the  Senate  was  misled,  and,  believing  that  there 
was  no  contract  for  fees  or  paying  for  securing  the  passage  of  the  bill, 
made  no  provision  for  securing  the  entire  fund  to  the  supposed  bene- 
ficiaries. 

The  committee  do  not  agree  with  the  contention  that  the  Senate  had 
no  right  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of  compensation  for  services  ren- 
dered by  their  attorney  to  the  book  agents.  The  Senate  was  passing 
upon  the  question  of  a  claim  against  the  United  States  made  by  trus- 
tees, not  for  their  personal  use,  but  for  the  benefit  of  certain  bene- 
ficiaries, and  there  was  the  same  jurisdiction  and  right  to  protect  the 
beneficiaries  from  excessive  charges  and  extortion  that  is  constantly 
exercised  by  the  courts  of  the  land  when  cases  are  being  tried  which 
affect  the  estates  of  infants  and  trust  funds. 


IV  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCEKN    SOUTH. 

Your  committee  have  not  felt  it  incumbent  on  it  to  consider  whether 
the  book  committee  or  the  bonk  agents  were  justified  in  making  the 
contract  with  Stahlman,  but  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  had  it  been 
known  that  more  than  one  third  of  the  amount  appropriated  was  to  go 
as  attorney  fees,  the  passage  of  the  bill  without  some  restriction  as  to 
the  amount  of  the  fees  was  hardly  possible. 

That  the  book  agents,  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith,  purposely  withheld 
from  the  Senate  and  Senators  favorable  to  the  passage  of  the  bill  the 
fact  that  35  per  cent  of  it  was  pledged  to  Mr.  Stahlman  is  clearly  shown 
by  their  own  testimony,  which  will  be  found  in  the  printed  proceedings 
of  the  committee,  and  it  will  be  observed  both  justify  their  conduct  on 
the  ground  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to  know  what  was  to  be  paid. 

If  there  was  any  mistake  or  omission  on  the  part  of  the  Senate,  it  was 
in  failing  to  protect  the  beneficiaries  against  the  book  agents,  Messrs. 
Barbee  &  Smith,  whose  duty  it  was  to  guard  their  interests,  and  this 
would  have  been  done  if  information  that  properly  belonged  to  them 
had  not  been  withheld.  The  acts  of  these  gentlemen  can  be  passed  upon 
by  the  authorities  of  the  great  religious  organization  whose  officers  they 
are  and  of  which  they  are  members,  and  the  responsibility  of  determiu 
ing  what  action  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  honor  and  integrity  of  the 
church  rests  with  the  governing  authorities,  whose  duty  it  is  to  enforce 
and  carry  out  its  laws  and  principles. 

In  conclusion,  the  committee  deem  it  proper  to  state  that  no  censure 
should  rest  upon  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  for  the  acts 
of  its  book  agents.  The  church  has  been  injured  by  the  misconduct  of 
its  agents,  but  for  such  misconduct  it  is  held  entirely  blameless. 

The  committee  has  not  thought  proper  to  suggest  to  the  Senate  any 
action  concerning  this  matter,  it  appearing  to  the  committee  that  the 
governing  authorities  of  the  church  must  be  allowed  to  take  such 
measures  as  it  may  think  proper  after  it  has  been  fully  acquainted  with 
the  facts  concerning  the  passage  of  the  bill  and  the  final  disposition  of 
the  money  appropriated  by  it. 


THE  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

INVESTIGATION  AS  TO  CIRCUMSTANCES  CONNECTED  WITH  THE 
PASSAGE  OP  A  BILL  FOR  ITS  RELIEF. 


SENATE  COMMITTEE  ON  CLAIMS, 

Washington,  D.  (7.,  June  22,  1898. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  the  following  resolution  of  the  Senate : 

Jtesolred,  That  the  Committee  on  Claims  be  directed  to  inquire  and  report  to  whom 
the  money  was  paid  under  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  South,  and 
also  as  to  all  circumstances  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  bill  providing  for  the 
payment  of  said  claim  and  with  the  subsequent  payment  of  the  money  under  said 
act  of  Congress. 

Present,  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Fairbanks,  Pasco,  and  Stewart, 
subcommittee. 

Messrs.  Colyar  and  Hawkins,  of  Nashville,  Tenn.,  appeared  as  coun- 
sel for  Mr.  Stahlinau,  and  Mr.  Garland,  of  Arkansas,  for  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern. 

The  Chairman  inquired  of  Mr.  Colyar  what  suggestions  he  had  to 
make  as  to  proceeding  with  the  investigation. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Mr.  Hawkins  and  I  came  here  yesterday  morning  with 
Mr.  Stalilman.  The  other  gentlemen,  appointed  as  a  committee,  did 
not  get  here  till  to-day,  so  that  we  have  had  no  time  to  consult.  We 
would  like  very  much  to  have  till  Friday  morning  to  get  ready;  but 
we  will  obey  any  order  which  the  committee  may  make  as  to  how  we 
will  proceed. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  you  any  suggestion  to  make  as  to  the  way  in 
which  you  would  like  to  proceed?  That  might  as  well  be  arranged 
now  so  as  to  be  ready  by  Friday  morning. 

Mr.  CGLYAR.  We  expect  this  committee  to  indicate  the  course  of 
procedure,  and  we  will  adapt  ourselves  to  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  to  what  witnesses  we  shall  examine  first? 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Yes;  we  will  be  satisfied  with  anything  you  do.  Tou 
may  take  Mr.  Stalilman  and  examine  him  first;  or  you  may  take  Mr. 
Barbee  or  Mr.  Smith.  They  are  all  three  here.  Whatever  you  may  do 
•we  will  be  satisfied. 

Senator  STEWART.  We  will  examine  those  gentlemen  and  some 
others.  Of  course  we  want  to  get  at  the  facts  in  as  brief  a  way  as 
possible.  We  want  to  examine  everybody  who  knows  anything  about 
the  circumstances. 

Senator  PASCO  (to  Mr.  Colyar).  You  have  read  the  debate  which 
took  place  in  the  Senate? 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  debate  has  put  you  in  possession  of  what  the 
Senate  desires.  This  investigation  was  not  proposed  by  the  committee, 
but  by  a  Senator  who  is  not  a  member  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  The  resolution  leaves  one  a  little  uncertain  as  to  the 
powers  and  purposes  of  the  committee. 


2  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  PASCO.  A  good  deal  has  to  be  left  to  oar  discretion  under 
that  resolution. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  quite  know  ourselves  until  we  examine 
the  facts.  (To  Senator  Fairbanks.)  Have  you  any  objection  to  letting 
the  matter  go  over  till  Friday  ? 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  No.  I  have  no  objection  to  its  going  over  till 
Friday.  But  we  should  proceed  as  promptly  as  we  can.  If  it  is  under- 
stood that  we  are  going  to  proceed  on  Friday,  and  if  a  quorum  be  here 
then,  1  hope  we  shall  go  on  promptly. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  there  should  not  be  a  quorum  here  we  will  appoint 
a  subcommittee.  We  will  go  on  on  Friday,  whether  there  is  a  quorum 
or  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Would  it  not  be  better  to  meet  at  half  past  9, 
as  the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  annexation  question  will  be  in  prog- 
ress on  Friday,  and  it  will  be  necessary  for  the  committee  to  adjourn 
at  12  o'clock? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  can  get  permission  to  sit  while  the  debate  is 
going  on;  or  we  can  have  an  evening  session.  I  want  to  close  up  the 
investigation  now  that  we  have  begun  it.  Judge  Colyar  will  please 
notify  his  people. 

Adjourned  till  Friday,  June  24. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  21, 1898. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present:  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Warren,  Fairbanks,  Pasco, 
Stewart,  and  Clay. 

After  the  executive  session  the  chairman  said:  The  committee  has 
determined  to  proceed  in  this  investigation  with  one  witness  only  pres- 
ent at  a  time.  The  reporters  of  newspapers  will  not  be  admitted.  The 
committee  will  admit  attorneys,  and  will  sit  as  a  subcommittee.  If 
counsel  has  any  suggestion  to  make  we  will  hear  it. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  We  would  like  the  committee  to  indicate  the  line  of 
policy  to  be  pursued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Here  is  the  resolution  under  which  the  committee  is 
acting,  and  we  will  keep  close  to  that  (reading) : 

Rexolred,  That  the  Committee  on  Claims  be  directed  to  inquire  and  report  to  whom 
the  money  was  paid  under  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  South,  and  also 
as  to  all  circumstances  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  bill  providing  for  the  pay- 
ment of  said  claim,  and  with  the  subsequent  payment  of  the  money  under  said  act 
of  Congress. 

We  think  that  our  inquiry  will  be  directed  simply  to  that.  We  shall 
probably  want  to  inquire  of  Mr.  Stahlman  about  this  money.  We  do 
not  expect  to  investigate  what  he  did  with  it  as  his  own  money.  The 
committee  has  no  disposition  to  inquire  what  use  he  made  of  it,  except, 
of  course,  that  we  may  want  to  know  whether  he  used  it  corruptly  or 
not. 

TESTIMONY  OF  REV.  J.  D.  BARBEE. 

Rev.  J.  D.  BARBEE,  sworn  and  examined. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  position  do  you  hold  in  connection  with  the 
M.  E.  Church  South,  and  how  long  have  you  held  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  am  the  book  agent  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South.  The 
office  is  a  double  one  now,  as  there  is  an  assistant  agent.  I  am  usually, 
by  way  of  distinction,  denominated  the  senior  agent.  I  have  been  in 
that  position  since  July,  1887 — eleven  years. 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH.  3 

Senator  PASCO.  Who  is  associated  with  you? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  D.  M.  Smith. 

Senator  PASCO.  Where  are  the  headquarters  of  the  agency? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Xashville,  Tenn. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  have  had  charge  of  this  claim  of  the  publishing 
house  against  the  United  States? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  claim  was  for  $288,000? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes.    The  claim  originally  was  more  than  that. 

Senator  PASCO.  But  the  amount  of  the  bill  passed  in  the  Senate 
March  last  was  $288,000? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  recollect  the  particulars  of  events  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  passage  of  that  bill?  Do  you  recollect  the  letter 
addressed  by  me  to  you  and  Mr.  Smith  on  the  5th  of  March  with  refer- 
ence to  the  compensation  of  an  agent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Look  upon  this — the  Congressional  Eecord — and  see 
whether  it  is  a  portion  of  the  letter  relating  to  the  subject? 

Mr.  BARBEE  (examining  the  Record).  Yes,  I  see  the  letter. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  letter  reads  as  follows: 

MARCH  5,  1898. 
Messrs.  BARBEE  &  SMITH,  NashriUe,  Tenn. 

DEAR  SIRS:  Some  malicious  persons  are  circulating  a  slanderous  story  about  the 
Capitol  with  the  evident  purpose  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  our  bill.  It  is  to  the 
effect  that  you  have  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman  to  pay  him  40  per  cent  of 
the  amount  recovered. 

It  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  get  any  contradiction,  because  I  knew  very  well 
that  the  :igents  of  the  publishing  house  knew  better  how  to  conduct  their  trust 
tlian  to  make  such  an  improvident  bargain,  and  I  knew  also  that  there  was  no  power 
to  make  such  a  contract,  so  I  did  not  hesitate  to  denounce  it  as  a  malicious  slander; 
and  I  ani  sure  also  that  the  Senators  who  came  to  me  for  information  upon  the  sub- 
ject are  thoroughly  satisfied  with  my  statement.  But  as  a  matter  of  caution  it  will 
be  very  well  for  me  to  Have  a  positive  denial  from  you  which  I  can  use  if  it  appears 
necessary  either  before  the  bill  comes  up  for  action  or  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  so 
I  suggest  that  you  send  me  telegram  on  Monday  as  to  the  facts  of  the  case  and 
authorizing  me,  as  1  am  sure  you  can,  to  deny  this  statement. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  recollect  whether  this  is  the  first  telegram 
which  yon  sent  in  reply : 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  7, 1898. 
Hon.  S.  PASCO,  Senator: 

Have  asked  Mr.  Stahlman  to  call  at  once  to  see  you.  He  is  a  gentleman  upon 
whoso  statements  you  may  implicitly  rely.  He  is  our  friend  and  neighbor  and 
official  member  of  our  church,  whose  interest  incur  behalf  reaches  beyond  and  above 
pecuniary  considerations. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Book  Agents. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  !No,  sir;  that  is  not  the  first  telegram. 
Senator  PASCO.  That  was  a  subsequent  ouet 
Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 
Senator  PASCO.  The  first  one  is  this: 

The  statement  is  untrue,  and  yon  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  date  was  that? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  was  sent  on  Monday,  March  7.  Those  telegrams 
followed  each  other  in  very  quick  succession.  They  were  only  a  few 
minutes  apart;  not  more  than  thirty  minutes. 

Senator  PASCO.  My  impression  is  that  the  second  telegram  reached 
me  first.  Examine  these  two  telegrams,  and  see  whether  this  is  the 


4  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

telegram  sent  to  yon  by  Senator  Bate  and  whether  this  is  your  answer 
to  it: 

Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee,  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I 
would  like  to  hear  from  you  also.  In  my  judgment,  if  true,  it  will  endanger  the  bill. 

WILLIAM  B.  BATE. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir;  that  is  Senator  Bate's  telegram  to  me. 
Senator  PASCO.  Now  1  will  read  your  reply: 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  7.  1X98. 
Hon.  W.  B.  BATK: 

We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m.  as  follows: 

"The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it.'' 

BARBKK  &  SMITH. 

These  telegrams  were  received  and  sent  on  the  day  that  the  Senate 
passed  the  bill  authorizing  the  payment  of  the  claim  to  the  book  agents? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  They  were  sent  on  the  date  indicated  there. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  was  the  date  of  the  passage  of  the  bill! 

Mr.  BARBKE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  the  money  collected  on  this  claim  after  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  By  whom  was  the  money  collected ;  into  whose  hands 
did  it  pass? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  Treasury  Department  paid  it.  It  sent  a  warrant 
to  Barbee  &  Smith,  of  Nashville. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  was  sent  from  Washington  to  Nashville  in  due 
course  of  mail? 

Mr.  BAKBEE.  Yes;  and  we  collected  the  amount  in  Nashville. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  what  date  was  that? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  it  a  week  or  ten  days  after  the  passage  of  the 
bill? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  can  not  say  exactly  within  what  definite  time  it  was, 
but  1  know  that  the  promptness  of  the  payment  surprised  me.  I  had 
learned  that  these  things  sometimes  lingered;  but  this  money  was  paid 
immediately  and  without  any  delay  at  all,  just  right  along.  The  exact 
length  of  time  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  I  can  not  state. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  the  agents  come  here  themselves  to  look  after 
it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  junior  agent,  Mr.  Smith,  came  on  to  Washington, 
but  he  did  not  learn  until  he  got  here  that  the  other  plan  was  to  be 
pursued.  He  went  to  Baltimore,  and  from  there  returned  home. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Then  the  payment  of  the  money  was  a  direct  trans- 
action between  the  Treasury  Department  and  the  book  agents,  carried 
on  by  mail  and  made  by  check? 

Mr.  BARHEE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Tell  us  what  disposition  was  made  of  the  money  after 
it  got  into  the  hands  of  the  book  agents. 

Air.  BARBEE.  The  first  thing  we  did  was  to  deduct  from  it  an  amount 
of  $2,000  which  had  been  borrowed  from  us  in  diffeient  sums  by  our 
attorney,  Major  Stahlman,  and  then  to  deduct  from  it  some  interest  and 
expenses  in  the  way  of  printing  which  we  had  done  for  him,  amounting 
ing,  in  all,  to  §2,800.  That  left  808,000,  for  which  we  gave  him  checks, 
as  follows:  $40,000  in  exchange  on  New  York,  drawn  by  the  Fourth 
National  Hank  of  Nashville,  and  two  checks.  1  do  not  recollect  the 
denomination  of  the  checks,  but  the  junior  agent  can  give  it  to  you. 
The  balance  was  divided  into  two  checks  for  the  sake  of  convenience. 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  5 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  first  was  the  New  York  Exchange  of  $40,000? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  other  two  checks  would  amount  to  $58,000? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  covered  the  amount  paid  to  Stahlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  total  amount? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  $100,800,  or  35  per  cent  of  the  claim. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  that  im  mediately  after  receiving  the  money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  I  think  we  did  it  the  same  day  we  got  the  warrant. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  Senate  has  imposed  upon  us  the  duty  of  inquir- 
ing into  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  bill 
for  the  payment  of  this  claim  connected  with  the  subsequent  payment 
of  the  money.  This  resolution  was  passed  on  the  motion  of  the  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Lodge)  because  it  was  stated  (notwithstand- 
ing these  telegrams  to  us)  that  a  large  amount  of  the  money  had  been 
paid  to  an  agent.  Give  an  explanation  of  your  telegram  and  of  your 
subsequent  action. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  know  what  you  mean  by  our  subsequent 
action. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  stated  it  was  false  that  this  arrangement  had 
been  made,  and  yet  within  a  day  after  you  got  the  money  you  did  pay 
$100,800  to  an  agent. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  did  not  state,  as  you  say,  that  it  was  false.  We 
received  the  letter  from  Senator  Pasco  to  which  you  called  my  attention 
a  few  moments  ago,  and  which  on  its  face  conveyed  to  us  perspicuously 
that  you  did  not  want  any  information,  but  that  he  asked  us  to  deny  a 
rumor  to  the  effect  that  we  were  to  pay  40  per  cent  of  the  claim.  It 
seemed  to  us  as  if  the  inquiry  was  propounded  to  us  in  such  a  way  as 
to  elicit  a  categorical  answer  in  the  form  of  a  denial,  and  we  answered 
accordingly.  We  stated  the  exact  fact  that  the  report  was  untrue  that 
we  were  paying  40  per  cent. 

Senator  PASCO.  My  letter  called  for  a  full  statement  of  the  case,  and 
it  suggested  that  you  send  me  a  telegram  as  to  the  facts.  How  do  you 
explain  this  telegram  in  reply  to  Senator  Bate's  telegram  as  to  Stahl- 
mau  having  a  fee  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee  in  case  of  payment  of 
your  claim  ?  You  telegraphed  to  that,  "  The  statement  is  untrue  and  you 
are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it."  How  do  you  explain  that? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Well,  sir,  the  fact  that  he  used  the  phrase  "40  per 
cent" 

Senator  PASCO.  "Or  any  other  fee." 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Pardon  me.  The  very  fact  that  he  said  "Answer  to 
Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlmau  having  fee  of 
40  per  cent"  conveyed  to  our  mind  that  he  and  Senator  Pasco  had  con- 
ferred, and  that  that  was  the  main  point  he  wanted  answered.  As  to 
the  words  "or  any  other  fee,"  we  thought  that  that  was  susceptible  of 
two  constructions,  either  that  he  intended  us  to  repeat  what  we  said  to 
Senator  Pasco  or  that  he  wanted  the  information  independently  on  his 
own  account.  If  the  first,  then  it  was  sufficient  simply  to  repeat  to  him 
the  telegram  that  we  had  sent  to  Senator  Pasco.  If  it  was  the  other, 
inquiring  on  his  own  account,  we  held,  without  intending  any  dis- 
courtesy to  Senator  Bate  or  anyone  else,  that  it  was  no  concern  of  his 
and  that  no  man  should  interest  himself  about  the  fee  which  we  paid 
to  an  attorney  for  prosecuting  our  business.  That  is  the  way  we  looked 
at  it.  We  did  not  mean  to  answer  Senator  Bate's  inquiry  at  all.  We 
simply  wanted  to  give  him  the  answer  that  we  sent  to  Senator  Pasco, 
and  to  show  him  that  we  had  not  been  remiss,  but  had  answered  Sen- 


6  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

ator  Pasco.  But  we  meant  to  be  utterly  silont  in  respect  to  Senator 
Bate's  other  inquiry,  conveying  to  him  the  idea  that  we  did  not  think 
any  man  had  a  right  to  inquire  what  a  litigant  was  paying  to  an 
attorney  to  represent  him. 

Senator  PASCO.  Your  idea,  then,  was  that  Senator  Bate  and  myself 
were  desirous  of  deceiving  the  Senate  and  wished  to  get  your  coopera- 
tion? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  beg  pardon ;  that  was  not  my  idea.  We  regarded 
you  both  as  friends  and  that  you  were  standing  to  us  in  some  way  (I 
may  use  the  wrong  term)  as  our  attorneys  and  representatives — Sena- 
tor Bate  being  our  senior  Senator  and  Senator  Pasco  having  charge  of 
the  bill  in  committee  and  fathering  it.  We  looked  upon  him  as  a  friend 
to  us  and  as  our  representative,  and  we  did  not  believe  these  gentlemen 
capable  of  an  intention  to  deceive  anybody. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  say  that  you  looked  upon  us  as  your  attorneys? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  said  that  I  might  be  using  the  wrong  word  there.  I 
am  not  felicitous  in  my  language.  I  understood  you,  at  least  in  your 
relations  to  us,  as  cordially  representing  us  in  this  matter. 

Senator  WARREN.  Your  intention  evidently  was  that  whatever  might 
be  the  feeling  of  Senator  Pasco  you  would  withhold  from  him  the  facts 
regarding  the  attorney's  fee  which  you  proposed  to  pay. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Only,  as  I  said  a  moment  ago,  that  I  hold  that  no  one 
has  any  right  to  inquire  what  a  litigant  is  paying  to  an  attorney. 

Senator  WARREN.  But  there  was  a  more  direct  way  of  saying  that 
it  was  none  of  their  business.  The  reply  came  back  that  the  report 
was  false,  and  the  idea  was  conveyed  that  no  percentage  was  to  be  paid 
to  any  attorney. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  want  to  say  to  a  Senator  that  it  was  none  of 
his  business. 

Senator  WARREN.  But  you  wanted  to  withhold  from  the  Senate  the 
facts  in  the  case. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  intend  to  convey  to  the  Senate  the 
impression  that  there  was  no  payment  to  be  made  to  any  claims  agent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not. 

Mr.  FAIRBANKS.  In  your  telegram  of  March  5,  to  Mr.  Pasco,  you  used 
this  language  referring  to  Mr.  Stahlman:  "He  is  our  friend  and  neigh 
bor  and  official  member  of  our  church  whose  interest  in  our  behalf 
reaches  beyond  and  above  pecuniary  considerations." 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  is  easily  explained. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Be  good  enough  to  explain  it. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Logically  and  grammatically  it  is  impossible  for  that 
phrase  "beyond  and  above  pecuniary  considerations"  to  mean  anything 
else  than  inclusive  of  pecuniary  considerations  and  beyond  them.  It 
does  not  mean  exclusive  of  them.  That  is  the  sense  in  which  we  used 
the  expression,  and  we  would  never  have  used  it  in  any  other  sense. 
That  is  exactly  what  we  meant,  and  that  telegram  was  designed  to 
disabuse  Senator  Pasco's  mind  of  an  impression  which  might  have  been 
made  upon  it  that  we  were  misleading  him. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  not  intend  by  that  language  to  have 
Senator  Pasco  infer  that  Mr.  Stahl man's  interest  in  the  matter  was 
purely  a  friendly  interest,  and  not  because  of  any  compensation  that 
was  to  be  paid  to  him? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  And  that  there  was  to  be  no  money  consid- 
eration ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir,  I  did  not  mean  that.  I  meant  to  convey  the 
idea  that  it  was  money  and  other  considerations. 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH.  7 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  meant  to  convey  the  impression  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  was  to  receive  a  money  consideration? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  meant  to  convey  that  impression,  as  I  understand  the 
language  logically  and  grammatically. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Then  you  simply  undertook  to  deny  the  idea 
or  impression  that  it  was  a  40  per  cent  fee  that  Stahlman  was  to 
receive? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  is  all  that  we  meant  to  deny. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Senator  Bate's  dispatch  is,  "Telegraph  to-day 
answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  "Stahlman  haying 
i'ee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee,  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim;" 
and  your  answer  to  that  is,  "  We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m. 
as  follows:  'The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  therefore  authorized 
to  deny  it.'"  What  did  you  mean  by  that1? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  meant  simply  to  convey  to  him  the  information 
that  Senator  Pasco's  question  had  been  already  answered. 

Senator  STEWART.  But  Senator  Bate  put  in  "  or  any  other  fee." 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  state  I  a  while  ago  what  my  idea  was  on  that  point. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  understand  the  consideration  son  which  this 
bill  was  passed.  The  Government  was  under  no  legal  obligation  to  pay 
the  claim.  We  made  an  exception  to  the  rule  for  educational  and. 
charitable  institutions  and  agreed  to  pay  damages  or  losses  in  those 
cases.  We  made  that  exception  to  the  rule  of  "  enemy  country  makes 
enemy  property."  In  considering  what  the  United  States  ought  to  do 
under  these  circumstances  in  favor  of  a  great  church,  do  you  not  think 
that  Senators  had  a  right  to  be  informed  where  the  money  was  going 
to — whether  it  was  going  to  be  used  for  church  and  charitable  pur- 
poses or  whether  it  was  going  to  be  divided  up  among  claims  agents. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  so  understand  it.  The  remarks  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  both  before  and  since  the  passage  of  the  bill  conveyed 
the  idea  distinctly,  I  think,  that  the  claim  was  a  just  claim. 

Senator  STEWART.  Then  you  took  the  position  that  this  was  a  legal 
obligation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States;  that  the  money  belonged 
to  you,  and  that  the  Senate  was  under  no  obligation  to  inquire  what 
disposition  you  were  going  to  make  of  it! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  was  the  view  we  had  of  it;  that  it  was  a  just  and 
equitable  claim,  and  in  no  sense  a  charity.  That  was  the  way  we  looked 
at  it,  and  the  amount  was  not  nearly  as  large  as  it  should  have  been. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  think,  then,  that  Congress  had  no  right 
under  the  circumstances  to  inquire  into  the  disposition  which  you  were 
to  make  of  that  money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  is  the  exact  position  which  we  held. 

Senator  STEWART.  And  you  feared  that  if  the  disposition  which  you 
were  to  make  of  it  was  disclosed  the  passage  of  the  bill  might  be 
endangered. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes;  as  Senator  Bate  said. 

Senator  STEWART.  Consequently,  you  framed  your  correspondence 
in  a  manner  to  exclude  from  the  Senate  the  real  facts? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  were  not  trying  to  exclude  anything  from  the 
Senate. 

Senator  STEWART.  Were  you  or  were  you  not  in  this  correspondence 
endeavoring  to  exclude  from  the  Senate  the  information  as  to  the 
arrangement  which  you  had  made  in  reference  to  the  disposition  of  the 
money  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  You  may  use  the  word  "exclude"  if  you  choose.  We 
were  acting  upon  the  principle  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to  inquire 
what  we  were  paying  an  attorney. 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  STEWART.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  intend  to  let  the  Senate 
know  what  disposition  yon  were  going  to  make  of  the,  money? 

Mr.  BARGEE.  No;  we  did  not  intend  to  let  the  Senate  know  that. 

Senator  STEWART.  Yon  intended  that  the  Senate  should  vote  upon 
the  bill  without  any  knowledge  of  the  disposition  that  was  to  be  made 
of  the  money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Of  course  we  intended  that  the  Senate  should  vote 
upon  it  as  a  claim  that  was  due  to  us,  and  if  we  chose  the  next  day  to 
disburse  it  in  charity  we  felt  that  no  one  had  any  right  to  raise  a  ques- 
tion in  regard  to  it. 

Senator  STEWART.  Are  you  a  lawyer? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  am  not;  I  am  like  necessity,  I  know  no  law. 

Senator  STEWART.  Do  you  not  know  that  courts  are  in  the  habit, 
even  in  cases  of  illegal  claims  (it  was  so  under  the  common  law),  to 
inquire  into  the  question  of  contingent  fees'? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  1  thought  that  the  very  reverse  was  true.  Suppose 
the  Senator  was  arguing  a  case  at  bar  and  that  the  court  should  inquire 
of  him  what  his  fee  was,  I  think  the  Senator  would  respond  that  that 
was  none  of  his  honor's  business,  and  if  the  decision  was  against  your 
client  I  think  the  Senator  would  take  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court, 
and  that  the  Supreme  Court  would  reverse  the  decree  and  order  a  new 
trial  and  reprimand  the  judge. 

Senator  STEWART.  I  think  not. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  seem  to  have  some  information  as  to  law  pro- 
ceedings. 

Senator  STEWART.  Then  I  understand  you  that  you  intended  to 
secure  the  vote  of  the  Senate,  and  at  the  same  time  to  conceal  from 
those  who  voted  what  disposition  you  proposed  to  make  of  the  money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  like  the  term  "  conceal,"  because  that  looks 
like  an  intention  to  deceive.  We  did  not  intend  to  let  anyone  know 
what  use  we  were  going  to  make  of  the  money,  and  we  do  not  propose 
to  let  anybody  know  now  what  use  we  have  made  of  it;  that  is  our 
private  business,  and  it  is  the  same  in  regard  to  an  attorney's  fee. 

Senator  STEWART.  Did  you  think  it  fair  to  the  Senators  with  whom 
you  communicated  to  place  them  in  the  position  of  representing  to  the 
Senate  that  there  was  not  a  contract  for  a  40  per  cent  fee  or  for  any 
other  amount?  Did  you  think  it  fair  to  let  them  make  that  statement 
to  the  Senate.  Can  you  not  see  what  position  yon  placed  them  in  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  thought  it  very  fair  and  very  frank  to  answer  a  cate- 
gorical question  directly.  Senator  Pasco's  letter  asked  for  a  denial  of 
the  40  per  cent  and  nothing  else. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Senator  Bate  telegraphed  to  you  as  follows: 
"Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as 
to  Stahlman  having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee,  in  case  of  pay- 
ment of  your  claim."  Did  you  understand  what  that  meant? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  That  the  information  was  desired  by  the  Sena- 
tor in  charge  of  the  bill  whether  any  fee  whatever  was  to  be  paid? 
You  understood  that! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  stated  my  understanding  of  that  a  moment  ago. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Be  good  enough  to  repeat  it. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  With  pleasure.  The  very  fact  that  Senator  Bate  used 
the  term  "40  per  cent" 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  "Or  any  other  sain." 

Mr.  BARBEE  (continuing).  The  very  fact  that  he  used  the  term  U40 
per  cent"  as  the  principal  statement  conveyed  to  our  mind  that  that 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH.  9 

was  the  very  thing  that  he  wanted  an  explanation  upon.  If  he  meant 
to  express  more  fully  what  Senator  Pasco  had  said,  either  explicitly  or 
inexplicitly,  our  telegram  would  convey  to  him  that  we  had  already 
answered  Senator  Pasco.  But  if  Senator  Bate  wanted  to  inquire  on 
his  own  account,  then  we  meant  simply  what  I  said  a  moment  ago — that 
we  did  not  think  it  was  any  concern  of  his  or  anyone  else  to  know  what 
fee  we  were  paying  to  an  attorney,  and  we  did  not  mean  to  answer  him 
about  it,  whether  it  would  damage  the  passage  of  the  bill  or  not. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  ever  communicate  to  Senator  Bate  or  myself 
the  fact  that  you  had  made  a  contract  for  dO  per  cent  or  35  per  cent  or 
3D  per  cent  or  any  other  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  think  we  did.  I  would  say  that  we  did  not, 
because  we  did  not  even  talk  of  it  among  our  own  people. 

Senator  WARRKN.  At  the  time  the  bill  passed  and  afterwards,  did 
you  read  the  proceedings  in  the  Congressional  Itecord? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes.  A  copy  of  the  Record  fell  into  my  hands  some 
time  afterwards,  and  I  read  it  with  very  great  surprise  at  some  of  the 
things  that  were  said. 

Senator  WARREN.  Did  you  feel  that  the  position  of  Senator  Bate 
and  Senator  Pasco  was  entirely  owing  to  the  statement  you  made  in 
order  to  obtain  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  did  it  strike  you  that  people 
might  be  unkind  enough  to  say  that  it  was  a  case  of  obtaining  money 
under  false  pretenses? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir.  Turn  to  the  Record  and  read  Senator  Pasco's 
speech.  He  spoke  on  the  Senate  floor  as  having  heard  rumors  and  as 
having  written  to  Barbee  and  Smith  in  relation  to  them,  and  he  said 
here  is  their  answer.  If  Senator  Pasco  had  read  to  the  Senate  at  the 
same  time  the  letter  which  he  wrote  to  us,  and  had  then  read  our  tele- 
gram, I  think  he  would  have  spoken  more  felicitously  and  more  perspicu- 
ously to  the  Senate.  Senator  Pasco  said  that  he  had  written  to  us  and 
that  we  had  telegraphed  back  that  there  was  not  a  word  of  truth  in  it. 
The  Senator  spoke  rather  freely  in  that  matter. 

Senator  WARREN.  If  a  person  should  come  to  you  to  do  business 
connected  with  the  church,  and  you  should  put  an  inquiry  to  him.  like 
that  which  Senator  Bate  put  to  you,  asking  him  whether  there  was  a 
contract  for  40  per  cent  or  any  other  sum,  and  you  should  be  answered 
in  the  same  manner  that  you  answered  Senator  Bate,  would  you  con- 
sider that  the  party  doing  business  with  you  was  entirely  frank? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  If  the  whole  situation — Senator  Pasco's  letter  and  Sen- 
ator Bate's  telegram  to  and  fro — were  all  before  me  in  a  state  of  facts  of 
that  sort,  I  would  say  that  what  I  said  to  Senator  Pasco  and  Senator 
Bate  was  frank  and  true. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  felt  it  necessary,  then,  in  order  to  secure  the 
passage  of  the  bill  (you  feeling  that  it  was  a  just  and  legal  claim),  if 
not  to  deceive  the  Senate,  at  least  to  withhold  certain  facts? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Let  me  say  frankly  and  candidly  that  I  do  not  believe 
that  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  affected  in  one  way  or  the  other  by 
what  was  said  in  the  Senate.  I  do  not  believe  that  a  single  vote  was 
lost  or  gained  for  it. 

Senator  WARREN.  That  does  not  answer  my  question. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  But  it  shows  the  ground  on  which  I  stand.  The  Sen- 
ate had  discussed  the  bill  thoroughly  for  a  long  time,  was  perfectly 
familiar  with  it,  had  reached  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a  just  and  equi- 
table claim,  and  I  believe  that  at  any  hour  when  the  bill  came  to  a  vote 
the  result  would  have  been  the  same,  or  approximately  the  same.  I  do 
not  think  that  the  letter  and  telegram  affected  the  result  at  alL 


10  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Senator  WARREN.  That  is  your  supposition,  and  it  may  be  more 
correct  than  ours.  Nevertheless,  that  does  not  answer  the  question 
whether  you  considered  that  the  exigencies  of  the  case  were  such  that 
you  must  conceal  from  the  Senate  certain  facts,  and  that  you  should 
therefore  answer  wrongly,  or  should  neglect  to  answer  a  portion  of  the 
inquiry  in  order  that  you  might  secure  the  passage  of  this  claim  which 
you  felt  was  your  due.  You  certainly  must  have  known  that  when  a 
Senator  asked  you  whether  there  was  a  contract  for  a  fee  of  40  per  cent 
to  be  paid  an  answer  that  that  was  false  conveyed  to  him  the  idea  that  no 
sum  was  being  paid  to  him  as  a  percentage.  You  felt  it  necessary  to 
keep  that  from  the  Senate. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  But  I  never  sent  such  a  telegram  as  that. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  did  not  use  that  language,  but  there  is  no 
occasion  for  you  to  quibble  about  it.  It  was  a  statement  on  your  part 
that  neither  a  percentage  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  sum  was  to  be 
paid. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir;  it  was  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  think  that  Senator  Bate's  question  applied 
only  to  a  fee  of  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  is  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  answer  did  you  give  to  the  words  "  any  other 
fee!" 

Mr.  BARBEE.  None;  and  we  did  not  intend  to,  because  we  did  not 
feel  that  that  was  a  proper  thing  to  be  inquired  into. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  realized,  then,  that  you  were  withholding  infor- 
mation from  Senator  Bate? 

Mr.  BARBER.  The  way  I  would  put  it  is  that  we  realized  we  were 
doing  a  thing  the  propriety  of  which  the  Senator  himself  must  see. 
Senator  Bate  made  inquiry  which  lie  himself  would  have  resented 
under  similar  circumstances,  and  we  felt  that  he  was  not  entitled  to  a 
statement  of  what  fee  we  were  to  pay. 

Senator  WARREN.  Why  did  you  not  say  so  in  your  telegram! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  would  have  been  offensive.  We  did  not  want  to 
make  that  statement,  and  so  we  just  left  it  where  it  was. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  do  not  like  the  term  "withholding."  You  know 
that  a  witness  on  the  stand  swears  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth.  Did  you  feel  you  were  up  to  that  standard? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  you  told  the  whole  truth? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Tell  us  when  this  contract  was  made  with  Stahl- 
inan  to  pay  him  35  per  cent  fee? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  can  not  tell  now  without  the  records. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Tell  us  about  when  it  was? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  is  a  point  which  I  do  not  recollect. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  got  a  copy  of  the  contract? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  think  we  have  it  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Will  you  produce  it? 

(Dr.  Denny,  a  member  of  the  book,  committee,  said  that  the  contract 
was  made  on  the  29th  of  July,  1895). 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  made  this  contract? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  book  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  composed  that  committee? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  It  is  very  hard  for  me  to  call  them  all.    Let  me  explain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  got  the  records  here  to  show  who  the 
members  of  the  committee  were? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  can  show  who  the  members  of  the  committee  were 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  11 

easily  enough,  but  not  from  memory.  The  committee  is  composed  of 
thirteen  men.  There  were  five  of  them  residents  in  Nashville  and  the 
other  eight  resided  in  different  parts  of  the  country. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  it  was  this  committee  of  thirteen  that  made 
the  contract  with  Stahlman  for  35  per  cent  on  the  29th  of  July,  1895. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Mr.  Smith  has  the  contract  and  will  pro- 
duce it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  you  a  member  of  the  book  committee? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir;  a  book  agent  can  not  be  a  member  of  the  book 
committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  were  cognizant  of  this  agreement  at  the  time  it 
was  made? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  was.  The  book  committee  can  not  sign  a  contract 
formally  themselves,  because  the  book  agents  are  the  men  to  sign  it, 
and  they  did  sign  it,  but  the  contract  was  made  by  the  book  committee 
itself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  it  was  signed  by  you  and  who  else? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  By  me  and  Mr.  Smith. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  By  you  as  the  senior  book  agent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes/ 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  actually  signed  these  dispatches  to  Senator 
Bate  and  Senator  Pasco? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  would  be  right  hard  to  say.  We  were  both 
present. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  and  Mr.  Smith  consulted  about  them? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  for  whatever  may  be  in  them  you  are  both 
responsible? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  you  mean  by  saying  that  you  regarded 
Senator  Bate  and  Senator  Pasco  as  your  attorneys? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  had  better  now  withdraw  that  language.  It  was  an 
awkward  expression. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  explain  what  you  meant  by  it. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  meant  first  that  Senator  Pasco  had  charge  of  the 
claim  in  the  Committee  on  Claims  for  years.  He  had  been  managing 
it  and  had  been  reporting  to  us,  while  Senator  Bate,  as  one  of  the  Sena- 
tors from  Tennessee,  had  charge  of  it  in  the  Senate  chamber  and  had 
taken  a  great  deal  of  interest  in  it  and  seemed  to  be  fathering  it.  As 
a  matter  of  course,  I  did  not  intend  to  convey  the  idea  that  a  member 
of  the  Senate  was  acting  as  our  attorney. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  meant  that  Senator  Pasco  had  the  bill  in 
charge? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  had  been  in  corrrespondence  with  him 
about  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  may  have  misunderstood  you,  but  I  think  you 
indicated  an  idea  on  your  part  that  Senator  Pasco  had  drawn  up  hi* 
letter  to  you  in  such  a  way  as  to  draw  from  you  a  particular  answer. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes;  that  is  the  way  it  impressed  me — that  he  had 
his  mind  upon  that  one  point. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  he  had  put  the  fee  at  40  per  cent,  so  that 
you  could  evade  the  answer? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  I  would  not  insinuate  that;  because  that  would 
not  be  respectful. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  think  he  did  that? 


12  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  !No,  sir. 

The  CHAIUMAN.  What  did  you  mean  by  saying  that  Senator  Pasco 
had  written  a  letter  so  as  to  draw  from  you  a  positive  answer. 

M  r.  BAUBEE.  I  supposed  he  was  acting  upon  the  principle  which 
I  mentioned  in  my  testimony  a  few  minutes  ago,  namely,  that  it  was 
none  of  his  concern,  or  anybody  else's,  to  know  whether  we  were  pay- 
ing any  one,  and  that  he  did  not  intend  to  draw  that  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  evidently  did  when  he  wanted  an  answer  from 
you. 

Mr.  BAKBBE.  He  said  that  he  wanted  a  denial. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Senator  Pasco  said  in  his  letter — 

Some  malicious  persons  are  circulating  a  slanderous  story  about  the  Capitol  with 
the  evident  purpose  of  obstructing  the  passage  of  our  bill.  It  is  to  the  eift-ct  that 
you  have  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahluian  to  pay  him  40  per  cent  of  the  amount 
recovered. 

Do  you  think  it  was  a  fair  answer  to  say  that  there  was  nothing  in 
that  report,  if  the  sum  to  be  paid  was  different  from  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BAUBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  the  sum  to  be  paid  was  35  per  cent,  you  thought 
it  a  fair  answer  to  say  that  the  statement  that  it  was  40  per  cent  was 
untrue? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  mean  that  as  an  answer  to  a  suggestion  of 
35  per  cent  or  any  other  sum,  but  as  an  answer  to  one  single  point, 
namely,  that  we  were  to  pay  40  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  believe  that  that  was  what  Senator  Pasco 
was  particularly  anxious  to  know! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  It  did  not  occur  to  me  to  say  that  Senator  Pasco  was 
particular  about  eliciting  any  information  at  all.  He  used  the  term 
"40  per  cent,"  and  asked  for  a  denial  as  to  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Senator  Pasco  had  assumed,  in  this  letter,  that  there 
was  no  contract  at  all? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  He  had. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  had  not  told  him  that  you  had  a  contract. 
You  concealed  that  from  him  '.' 

Mr.  BARBEE.  You  may  use  the  term  "conceal,"  if  you  choose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Had  you  told  anybody  outside  of  the  book  commit- 
tee that  you  had  such  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  contract  to  pay  him  35  per  cent! 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Any  kind  of  a  contract1? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  what  language  we  may  have  used, 
but  I  never  concealed  the  fact  that  Mr.  Stahlmau  was  our  regular  rep- 
resentative and  attorney. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  tell  anybody  that  you  had  a  contract  with 
him  for  a  specific  sum? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  said  a  while  ago  that  it  was  not  known  to  your 
people.  What  did  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  What  I  meant  was  that  we  did  not  make  it  a  common 
talk  among  our  people.  We  kept  it  as  a  professional  and  business 
matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  never  notified  either  Senator  Bate  or 
Senator  Pasco  that  you  had  a  contract  with  any  one? 

Mr.  BAUBEE.  I  have  no  recollection  of  having  so  notified  them  unless 
you  take  a  certain  telegram  which  I  sent  to  Senator  Bate  last  December 
as  a  notification. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  that? 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  13 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Senator  Bate  had  been  desiring  me  to  come  to  Wash- 
ington, and  he  sent  a  telegram  to  Nashville  in  December.  I  was 
absent  at  the  time  attending  the  conference.  The  telegram'  asked  me 
if  I  could  not  come  to  Washington.  It  was  forwarded  to  me  at  Bryan, 
Tex.,  by  mail,  and  from  there  I  telegraphed  to  Senator  Bate  that  his 
telegram  had  been  mailed  tome  at  that  place  and  that  he  could  consult 
or  confer  (I  do  not  know  which  term  I  used)  with  Mr.  Stahlman  who 
represented  me  and  who  had  full  authority  in  the  matter.  That  clearly 
conveyed  to  Senator  Bate  that  Mr.  Stahlman  was  our  representative. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  suppose  this  other  statement  in  your  telegram 
that  "he  is  a  gentleman  upon  whose  statements  you  may  implicitly 
rely.  He  is  our  friend  and  neighbor  and  official  member  of  our 
church*' 

Mr.  BABBEE.  That  telegram  was  sent  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  PASCO.  But  there  is  no  mention  in  this  that  he  was  your 
agent.  I  said  in  my  letter  that  a  story  was  being  circulated  that  you 
had  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman,  and  you  failed  to  mention  to 
me  that  he  was  your  agent,  although  I  was  seeking  for  information. 
Instead  of  saying  that  he  was  your  agent,  you  said  "he  is  a  gentleman 
upon  whose  statements  you  may  implicitly  rely.  He  is  our  friend  and 
neighbor  and  official  member  of  our  church  whose  interest  in  our 
church  reached  beyond  and  above  pecuniary  considerations."  You 
failed  utterly  to  mention  the  fact  that  he  was  your  agent.  Was  that 
failure  designedly? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No.    1  had  no  idea  you  wanted  to  know  that  fact. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  whole  tenor  of  my  letter  was  to  know  if  you  had 
an  agent  to  whom  you  were  to  pay  40  per  cent  or  any  other  per  cent. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  always  spoke  of  him  as  our  attorney. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  referred  to  him  as  a  friend  and  neighbor,  and  a 
gentleman  upon  whose  statement  we  might  implicitly  rely;  all  leading 
me  away  from  the  truth. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  If  we  had  supposed  that  you  did  not  know  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  represented  us,  we  would  have  stated  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  you  were  inquired  of  as  to  whether  you  had 
made  a  contract,  I  think  it  was  belittling  the  question  to  say  that  you 
had  not  made  a  contract  for  40  per  cent.  You  should  have  told  the 
thing  just  as  it  was.  I  think  it  belittles  the  whole  matter  for  you  to 
say  that  because  you  did  not  pay  40  percent  the  statement  was  untrue. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  If  there  was  any  question  as  to  Senator  Pasco's 
letter  there  could  have  been  no  doubt  about  Senator  Bate's  telegram. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Senator  Bate's  telegram  was  based  upon 
Senator  Pasco's  letter. 

Senator  STEWART  (to  the  witness).  I  understand  you  to  have  acted 
under  the  supposition  that  Senator  Pasco  did  not  desire  information, 
but  simply  wanted  a  denial  of  the  fact  for  use  in  the  Senate.  Is  it 
your  idea  that  he  did  not  desire  any  real  information?  I  understand 
you  to  state,  in  substance,  that  that  was  your  view  of  Senator  Pasco's 
letter.  Is  that  so? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  honorable  chairman  of  this  committee  and  other 
Senators  have  stated 

Senator  STEWART.  No  matter  what  they  have  stated.  Did  you 
understand  from  Senator  Pasco's  letter  that  he  did  not  desire  any  real 
information  on  the  subject  of  the  contract? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  understood  one  thing  and  one  thing  only,  and  that 
was  that  Senator  Pasco  desired  us  to  deny  that  we  were  paying  40  per 
cent. 

S.  Rep.  1416 2 


14  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  STEWART.  How  did  you  construe  this  language- 
Some  malicious  persons  are  circulating  a  slanderous  story  about  the  Capitol  with 
the  evident  purpose  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  our  bill.     It  is  to  the  efl'ect  that  you 
have  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahhnan  to  pay  him  40  per  cent  of  the  amount 
recovered. 

Would  that  have  been  any  less  slanderous  if  the  story  had  been  50 
per  cent,  and  would  you  have  answered  in  the  same  way? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  STEWART.  Then  it  was  the  particular  40  per  cent  which 
attached  the  character  of  untruth  to  the  story,  was  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  STEWART.  No  other  amount  would  have  answered  the 
purpose? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Senator  STEWART.  Suppose  it  had  been  50  per  cent,  would  the  story 
not  have  been  equally  slanderous! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  A  little  more  so. 

Senator  STEWART.  Suppose  it  had  been  39  per  cent,  would  it  not 
have  been  equally  slanderous? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir.  The  truth  is  I  would  not  have  thought  50  per 
cent  any  too  much. 

Senator  STEWART.  Senator  Pasco  further  says : 

It  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  get  any  contradiction,  because  I  know  very  well  that 
the  agents  of  the  publishing  house  knew  better  how  to  conduct  their  trust  than  to 
make  such  an  improvident  bargain,  and  I  knew  also  that  there  was  no  power  to  make 
such  a  contract,  so  I  did  not  hesitate  to  denounce  it  as  a  malicious  slander,  and  I 
am  sure  also  that  the  Senators  who  came  to  me  for  information  upon  the  subject  are 
thoroughly  satisfied  with  my  statement. 

Then  you  think  that  Senator  Pasco  denouncing  it  as  a  malicious 
slander  depended  upon  the  exact  percentage  of  40  per  cent,  and  that 
you  would  be  entirely  relieved  from  responsibility  if  you  denied  that 
there  was  any  other  percentage  agreed  to  than  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  say  that. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  did  not  want  to  place  him  in  a  position  of 
denouncing  it  as  a  slander,  if  it  turned  out  to  be  true,  did  you?  You 
did  not  want  to  get  him  in  that  fix? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir. 

Senator  STEWART.  He  denounced  it  as  a  slander,  and  you  think  that 
if  it  turned  out  that  he  was  not  exactly  right  about  the  percentage,  he 
would  be  justified  in  denouncing  it  as  a  slander,  a  mistake  having  been 
made  about  the  percentage? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  1  understood  him,  and  he  said 

Senator  STEWART.  That  is  not  what  1  asked  you.  Do  you  think  that 
Senator  Pasco  would  be  justified  in  denouncing  it  as  a  malicious  slander 
if  you  had  agreed  to  pay  something  different  than  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  It  is  a  matter  of  opinion  what  a  malicious  slander 
would  be 

Senator  STEWART.  Did  you  want  him  to  stand  as  denouncing  40  per 
cent  as  a  slander,  if  the  actual  amount  was  35  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  want  to  justify  it  or  to  nujustifyit.  I  simply 
denied  that  we  were  paying  40  per  cent. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  did  you  understand  Senator  Pasco  as 
meaning  when  he  said  "  and  I  knew  also  that  there  was  no  power  to 
make  such  a  contract?" 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  bothered  us  for  a  while,  unless  he  meant  that 
there  was  no  power  in  the  book  agents  aside  from  the  book  committee. 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  15 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  understand  that  be  only  challenged 
the  power  to  make  a  contract  at  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Or  any  other  percentage. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Then,  if  you  had  no  power  in  your  organiza- 
tion to  make  any  contract,  do  you  think  that  in  view  of  that  Senator 
Pasco  wanted  you  to  equivocate? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No;  I  do  not  think  he  was  trying  to  equivocate. 

Senator  STEWART  (reading  from  Senator  Pasco's  letter) : 

But  as  a  matter  of  caution  it  will  be  very  well  for  me  to  have  a  positive  denial 
from  you,  which  I  can  use,  if  it  appears  necessary,  either  before  the  bill  comes  up 
for  action  or  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  so  I  suggest  that  you  send  me  a  telegram  on 
Monday  as  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  authorizing  me,  as  I  am  sure  you  can,  to 
deny  this  statement. 

Did  you  understand  from  that  that  Senator  Pasco  wan  led  you  to  con- 
ceal the  facts  in  the  case — any  of  the  material  facts? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No;  I  do  not  mean  to  be  understood  that  he  was  sug- 
gesting any  concealment. 

Senator  STEWART.  Do  you  not  think  that  if  the  contract  was  for  35 
per  cent  or  40  per  cent,  that  the  concealing  of  that  fact  would  be  very 
material?  Do  you  not  think  that  material  to  his  inquiry  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not. 

Senator  STEWART.  Then  you  think  that  the  sole  inquiry  was  fixed 
upon  the  idea  of  40  per  cent,  and  that  if  you  denied  that  he  would  go 
before  the  Senate  and  say  that  there  was  no  contract? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  have  stated  time  and  again  that  I  understood  Sena- 
tor Pasco  to  be  asking  me  directly  whether  we  paid  40  per  cent.  That 
is  what  we  understood  and  that  is  what  we  answered — that  and  no 
more. 

Senator  STEWART.  If  the  fee  had  been  50  per  cent,  you  would  have 
answered  in  the  same  way? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  1  do  not  know. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  would  have  denied  that  it  was  40  per  cent 
if  your  contract  had  been  for  50  per  cent,  would  you? 

Mr.  BARKEE.  Why,  as  a  matter  of  course.  Understanding  it  in  that 
way;  yes. 

Senator  WARREN.  Taking  the  ground  that  Senator  Pasco  wanted  a 
denial,  what  would  have  been  your  answer,  if  the  contract  had  been  for 
40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  will  tell  you  exactly.  I  would  have  said,  "Excuse 
us,  Senator,  but  that  is  a  matter  between  us  and  our  attorney,  and  is  a 
question  as  to  which  we  do  not  recognize  the  right  of  anybody  to 
inquire." 

Senator  WARREN.  Then  if  Senator  Pasco  had  happened  to  hit  upon 
the  right  sum,  your  answer  would  have  been  the  same? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Where  do  you  understand  the  final  power  to  make 
contracts  in  your  church  to  rest? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Do  you  mean  in  reference  to  the  publishing-house 
business? 

Senator  PASCO.  Yes.  You  say  that  the  contract  was  not  made  by 
the  book  agents,  but  by  the  book  committee.  Where  do  you  under- 
stand the  power  to  make  a  final  contract  to  rest,  under  the  law  of  your 
church  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  know  that  I  comprehend  your  question,  but  I 
will  answer  it  as  I  do  comprehend  it.  A  formal  contract  to  be  legal 


16  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

must  be  signed  by  the  book  agents.  The  name  of  the  house  is  "The 
Book  Agents  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South." 

Senator  PASCO.  You  say  that  tliis  contract  was  made  by  the  book 
committee,  and  yet  you  say  that  it  was  not  made  by  the  book  agents. 
I  understand  that  the  first  step  is  for  the  book  agents  to  make  a  con- 
tract. What  is  the  next  step.  That  is  not  binding,  is  it! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Ob,  yes.  The  corporate  name  of  the  house  is  "The 
Book  Agents,"  and  the  particular  book  agents  represent  that  corporate 
name.  The  law  of  the  church  provides  that  they  shall  act  under  the 
direction  of  the  book  committee. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  is  the  second  step? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No;  not  the  second  step  in  a  transaction  like  this. 
Views  were  exchanged  back  and  forth,  one  way  and  the  other,  and  the 
decision  was  reached  by  the  book  committee  that  they  would  give  Mr. 
Stahlman  35  percent,  he  taking  the  whole  risk  and  paying  all  the 
expenses. 

Senator  STEWART.  Have  you  given  all  the  information  that  you  have 
in  reference  to  the  disposition  of  this  matter? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  If  you  want  to  know  what  was  done  with  the  balance 
of  the  money 

Senator  STEWART.  No;  you  have  no  knowledge  whatever,  have  you, 
of  the  disposition  that  was  made  of  the  $100,800! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No;  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Stahlman  did  with  the 
money. 

Senator  STEWART.  The  two  checks  which  you  drew  after  the  $40,000 
exchange  on  New  York,  you  do  not  know  what  was  done  with  that 
money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir.     „ 

Senator  STEWART.  No  explanation  was  given  to  you  as  to  what  was 
done  with  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Nobody  presumes  to  inquire  what  you  gentlemen  do  in 
your  private  affairs,  and  I  did  not  inquire  what  Major  Stahlman  did 
with  the  money. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  do  not  know  of  any  person  being  interested 
in  that  money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir. 

Senator  STEWART.  Nobody  connected  with  the  Book  Concern  got 
any  of  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No  one,  so  far  as  I  have  heard. 

Senator  STEWART.  Did  you  have  any  commission  yourself? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Positively,  no,  sir. 

Senator  Stewart.  To  whom  were  these  checks  made  payable — to  Mr. 
Sfahlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  STEWART.  Who  was  the  cashier  of  the  bank  on  which  these 
checks  were  drawn? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  the  checks  were  on  two 
banks  or  one.  The  Fourth  National  Bank  was  the  bank  through  which 
we  got  the  840,000  exchange  on  New  York,  and  I  think  it  was  one  of 
the  banks  on  which  a  check  was  drawn.  The  junior  agent  can  tell  you 
that  exactly.  He  is  the  one  who  did  the  checking. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  see  Mr.  Stahlman  after  your  receipt  of 
Senator  Pasco's  letter? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir;  Mr.  Stahlman  was  here  in  Washington.  We 
telegraphed  him  immediately  that  we  had  sent  this  dispatch  to  Senator 
Pasco,  and  asking  him  to  see  him. 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  17 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Have  you  copies  of  the  telegraphic  correspond- 
ence between  you  and  Mr.  Stahlmau  respecting  this  matter? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Have  you  got  the  copies  here? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Do  you  mean  correspondence  reaching  back? 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  No;  the  correspondence  with  reference  to  this 
particular  transaction. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes;  we  have  got  the  correspondence  here. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Be  good  enough  to  produce  it. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  You  will  have  to  ask  the  other  agent  when  he  comes  in. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  report  this  transaction  to  your  general 
conference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  When  was  that  conference  held,  and  where? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  On  the  oth  of  May.  1898,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  How  long  did  the  conference  continue  in  session  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  About  three  weeks. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  When  did  you  make  your  report  to  the  con- 
ference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  first  days  of  the  conference. 

Senator  WARREN.  I  suppose  that  naturally  in  all  these  years,  there 
has  been  a  large  amount  of  expenses  in  prosecuting  the  claim. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  had  contracts  with  gentlemen  residing  here  before 
we  made  the  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman. 

Senator  WARREN.  After  paying  $100,800  to  Mr.  Stahlman,  had  any 
portion  of  the  balance  of  the  money  to  be  paid  to  other  attorneys  for 
prosecuting  the  claim? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Oh,  no;  we  paid  none. 

Senator  WARREN.  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  Mr.  Stahlman  paid 
for  the  services  or  expenses  of  anybody  else?  Did  he  pay  anybody  con- 
nected with  the  church  or  with  the  book  concern  any  portion  of  the 
$100,800  which  he  received? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  He  did  not  pay  me  anything,  and  I  am  quite  certain 
that  he  did  not  pay  anything  to  anybody  else  connected  with  the  Book 
Concern. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  feel  that  you  can  answer  that  in  the  negative  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  made  him  pay  the  whole  of  the  expenses.  He  took 
the  whole  risk.  I  made  three  trips  to  Washington  myself  and  all  my 
expenses  were  charged  up  to  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.    That  was  part  of  the  $2,800? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  feel  positive  that  the  disposition  of  this  sum 
paid  to  Stahlman  would  not  disclose  any  amount  paid  either  for  ex- 
penses or  fees  directly  or  indirectly  to  any  person  connected  with  the 
Church  affairs  except  as  you  have  stated? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir.  All  that  the  church  got  out  of  it  was  $187,200, 
which  is  there  now  in  Nashville. 

Senator  WARREN.  When  did  you  furnish  this  $2,000  to  Staljlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  At  different  times.  It  may  be  that  my  associate,  Mr. 
Smith,  can  tell  you  exactly  or  approximately,  but  I  did  not  charge  my 
memory  with  it. 

Senator  WARREN.  You  have  stated  here  that  in  answering  Senator 
Bate  and  Senator  Pasco  the  occasion  justified  a  rather  diplomatic 
answer — I  may  say  an  adroit  answer.  Are  you  answering  this  ques- 
tion with  the  same  adroitness,  and  if  Mr.  Stahlman  had  contributed 
$20,000  or  $25,000  as  a  gift  would  you  consider  that  outside  and  entirely 


18  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

apart  from  the  answer  you  have  given?  That  is  to  say,  would  you  con- 
sider that  that  was  not  a  fee  because  it  was  not  put  in  that  exact  form! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  would  regard  it  as  a  fee  and  as  a  corrupt  thing  to  do. 
If  he  should  otter  it  to  me  I  know  that  I  should. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  said  a  moment  ago  that  Mr.  Stahlman  took 
all  the  risk.  What  did  you  mean? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  meant  whatever  it  might  cost  him. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  The  Church  had  loaned  him  $2,000  on  a  mort- 
gage? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Then  did  not  the  Church  take  the  risk  and  not 
Mr.  Stahlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  think  that  it  cost  him  a  good  deal  more  than  $2,000. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Do  you  recollect  how  recently  that  loan  was 
made? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No;  but  it  reached  back  not  less  than  a  year  ago.  I 
think  that  the  first  loan  for  $1,000  goes  back  as  far  as  two  years  ago. 
The  first  loan  was  given  on  a  mortgage  on  property  worth  three  or  four 
times  the  amount.  For  the  second  loan  we  took  the  security  of  the 
Banner  Publishing  Company,  a  very  prosperous  newspaper  in  Nash- 
ville. 

Senator  PASCO.  With  reference  to  the  contract  with  the  Church  for 
this  large  sum  of  money,  you  say  that  the  first  step  in  making  the  con- 
tract was  by  the  book  agents,  but  that  it  had  to  be  approved  by  the 
book  committee.  Did  that  end  it  all  ?  Is  the  contract  complete  when 
made  in  that  way? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  You  did  not  understand  me  correctly. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  the  right  steps,  if  I  have  not  stated  them. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  book  agents,  Barbee  and  Smith,  when  they  have 
a  financial  problem,  call  the  book  committee  together  at  once,  lay  the 
question  before  the  committee,  and  (as  was  the  case  with  Mr.  Stahlman) 
they  brought  him  forward,  and  the  book  committee  consulted  with  him 
and  decided  what  must  be  done,  and  then  the  book  committee  handed 
the  matter  over  to  the  book  agents  to  make  the  formal  legal  contract. 

Senator  PASCO.  Then  this  contract  was  made  with  the  book  agents? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  legal  form  of  contract  was,  but  the  trade  itself 
was  made  by  the  book  committee. 

Senator  PASCO.  Does  not  the  rule  of  your  Church  require  that  all 
these  matters  shall  be  under  the  control  of  the  general  conference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir;  but  every  thing  in  the  Church  is  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  general  conference.  The  general  conference  has  original 
jurisdiction. 

Senator  PASCO.  My  view  of  the  power  of  the  book  agents  as  expressed 
in  my  letter,  where  I  said  that  I  knew  there  was  no  power  to  make  such 
a  contract,  was  based  upon  what? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Upon  Article  3,  of  section  8,  which  gives  to  the  general 
conference  general  direction  as  to  the  funds  of  the  Church. 

Senator  PASCO.  So,  I  take  it,  that  unless  the  general  conference 
approves  a  contract,  you  are  powerless  to  dispose  of  a  large  amount  of 
money,  like  35  or  40  per  cent  of  the  sum. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  general  conference  can  not  go  into  details  of  busi- 
ness in  money  transactions. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  am  referring  to  this  large  contract. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  might  become  a  financial  transaction  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  quadrennial  period,  and  would  then  have  to  wait  for  four 
years,  but  the  general  conference  has  prescribed  laws  for  the  guidance 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  19 

of  the  book  committee,  and  of  the  book  agents  under  which  they 
acted. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  whether  any  increase  of  your  salary  has  been 
made  by  the  general  conference  since  this  money  was  collected. 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Yes.  The  increase  occurred  as  a  fact  after  the  amount 
was  collected,  but  it  did  not  relate  to  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  tlie  amount  of  the  increase. 

Mr.  BABBEE.  My  salary  was  raised  $500  a  year. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  is  the  amount  you  now  receive? 

Mr.  BAEBEE.  Three  thousand  dollars  a  year. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  Mr.  Smith's  salary  also  raised? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Yes;  it  was  raised  by  the  same  amount,  and  also  the 
salary  of  the  editors. 

Senator  PASCO.  How  many  editors  are  there? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Five,  I  believe. 

Senator  PASCO.  Mention  their  names. 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Dr.  Hoss,  Dr.  Tyger,  Dr.  Du  Bose,  Dr.  Atkins,  and 
Dr.  Fite. 

Senator  STEWART.  Their  salaries  were  all  raised  how  much? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Five  hundred  dollars  a  year;  but  that  can  be  easily 
explained  without  reference  to  this  appropriation. 

Senator  PASCO.  Are  any  of  those  editors  members  of  the  book  com- 
mittee? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  No,  sir;  it  would  not  be  proper  for  them  to  be  so. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Explain  to  the  committee  the  distinctive 
and  separate  duties  of  the  book  agents  and  of  the  book  committee. 

Mr.  BABBEE.  They  are,  briefly,  these:  The  book  agents  have  charge 
of  and  are  responsible  for  the  whole  property,  the  grounds,  the  build- 
ings, the  machinery,  the  stock  in  trade,  the  money,  and  everything; 
all  that  is  in  the  hands  of  the  book  agents  and  is  controlled  and  man- 
aged by  them,  and  they  are  required  to  make  a  statement  of  their 
afl'airs.  They  execute  their  office  under  the  directions  of  the  book 
committee — the  book  committee  standing  in  the  same  relation  to  them 
as  bank  directors  to  a  bank  president  and  cashier. 

Mr.  GABLAND.  Did  you  not  regard  Senator  Pasco's  letter  as  planting 
itself  entirely  upon  the  obnoxious  feature  of  a  fee  of  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  I  did. 

Mr.  GABLAND.  And  you  so  answered  it? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  I  did. 

Mr.  GABLAND.  When  you  got  the  telegram  from  Senator  Bate,  the 
answer  which  you  had  sent  to  Senator  Pasco  was  still  in  your  mind. 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Yes. 

Mr.  GABLAND.  And  you  supposed  that  answer  to  be  sufficient  for  the 
purpose? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Yes ;  hardly  an  hour  had  elapsed  between  the  two,  I 
reckon. 

Mr.  GABLAND.  The  telegram  to  Senator  Pasco  went  first? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  Yes;  the  two  telegrams  to  Senator  Pasco  went  first. 

Mr.  GAELAND.  At  what  hour  of  the  day  on  the  7th  of  March  was 
your  first  telegram  sent  to  Mr.  Pasco  ? 

Mr.  BABBEE.  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  GAELAND.  You  told  him  that  Mr.  Stahlman  would  see  him,  and 
that  he  might  rely  upon  Mr.  Stahlman's  statements? 

Mr.  BAEBEE.  I  told  him  to  see  Mr.  Stahlman,  and  then  I  telegraphed 
Mr.  Stahlinau  to  see  Senator  Pasco  at  once  in  relation  to  the  matter. 


20  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  You  supposed  then  that  Mr.  Stahltnan  would  make  a 
clean  breast  of  the  whole  matter? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  supposed  that  he  would  tell  whatever  was  necessary. 
We  had  no  desire  of  concealment.  If  he  wished  to  tell  the  whole  thing, 
he  might  do  so. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Did  you  have  any  correspondence  with  Mr.  Pasco 
after  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  after  the  payment  of  the  money? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Have  you  got  the  original  of  that  correspondence  in 
your  possession  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  They  are  here.  When  I  saw  the  Congressional  Kecord 
and  noted  what  Senators  had  said  immediately  pending  the  passage  of 
the  bill,  particularly  the  remarks  of  Senator  Pasco  and  of  Senator 
Bate,  I  sat  down  and  wrote  a  letter  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Where  are  those  letters? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  They  are  here;  my  associate  has  them. 

Mr.  COLTAR  (counsel  for  Mr.  Stahlman).  At  the  time  you  made  the 
contract  with  Mr.  Stahlmau  how  did  you  regard  the  condition  of 
the  claim  in  two  aspects,  one  as  to  its  justice  and  the  other  as  to  the 
probability  of  collecting  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  intend  to  go  into  the  question  of  whether 
Mr.  Stahl man's  fee  was  fair  or  not.  We  are  trying  to  get  at  the  trans- 
actions which  occurred  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  beyond 
that  we  do  not  intend  to  go. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  mean  then  that  no  questions  can  come  out  as  to 
the  moderateness  of  the  fee? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  does  not  come  up  in  this  investigation. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  May  it  not  be  material  in  view  of  something  else? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  that  we  will  go  into  it  at  the  present 
time,  at  least.  I  do  not  think  we  are  going  into  an  investigation  of 
what  other  people  have  paid  as  fees,  or  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  It  may  be  important  by  way  of  illustrating  whether 
Dr.  Barbee  did  not  consider  that  the  contract  was  reasonable. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  that  that  is  the  inquiry  we  are  after. 
The  inquiry  is  whether  he  intentionally  deceived  Senators  as  to  the  fee 
to  be  paid. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Might  it  not  go  to  explain  that  there  was  no  purpose 
to  deceive,  and  to  show  that  this  was  a  reasonable  contract? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  we  will  go  into  it  now. 

TESTIMONY  OF   DAVID  M.  SMITH. 

DAVID  M.  SMITH,  sworn  and  examined. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  your  connection  with  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern  South,  and  how  long  you  have  been  connected  with  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  am  the  assistant  book  agent.  I  have  been  there  since 
February.  1888. 

Senator  PASCO.  Who  is  your  associate  or  chief? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Dr.  Barbee. 

Senator  PASCO.  Your  name  is  mentioned  in  the  bill  that  was  passed 
for  the  payment  of  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  South 
amounting  to  $288,000? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Where  are  the  headquarters  of  the  book  agents? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Nashville,  Teun. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  remember  a  letter  addressed  by  me  to  the 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  21 

book  agents  011  the  5th  of  March  last  with  reference  to  a  story  circu- 
lating about  the  Capitol? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Say  whether  this  is  a  portion  of  the  letter  relating 
to  the  matter  (reading) : 

Some  malicious  persons  are  circulating  a  slanderous  story  about  the  Capitol  •with 
the  evident  purpose  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  our  bill.  It  is  to  the  effect  that  you 
have  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlinan  to  pay  him  40  per  cent  of  the  amount 
recovered. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  it  is  the  same. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  see  that  letter  at  the  time  it  was  received* 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  we  received  it  on  the  7th  of  March. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  recollect  what  response  was  made  to  it? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  it,  if  you  please. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  reply  was: 

Letter  received.  The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are,  therefore,  authorized  to 
deny  it. 

Senator  PASOO.  Was  there  not  also  another  telegram  sent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  See  if  these  are  the  two  telegrams  (handing  copies 
of  them  to  the  witness). 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  they  are  correct. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  saw  both  of  these  telegrams  at  the  time  they 
were  sent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  you  were  engaged  in  sending  them? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  They  are  the  same  as  the  telegram  on  page  26  of  this 
pamphlet  saying: 

Letter  of  the  5th  received.  The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are,  therefore, 
authorized  to  deny  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  the  other  telegram  is  printed  on  page  6351  of 
the  Congressional  Eecord,  in  which  you  say,  "  Have  asked  Mr.  Stahl- 
man  to  call  at  once  to  see  you."  Do  you  recollect  the  telegram  sent  to 
you  on  the  same  day  by  Senator  Bate? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  saw  that  telegram  at  the  time,  did  you? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  join  in  the  reply? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  See  whether  these  are  Senator  Bate's  telegram  and 
your  reply  on  page  6348  of  the  Congressional  Record? 

Mr.  SMITH  (after  examining  the  Record).    They  are. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  recollect  that  the  bill  passed  on  the  day  that 
these  telegrams  were  sent  and  received? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  bill  passed  on  the  day  following,  I  think. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  the  money  paid  to  the  book  agents  after  the  bill 
was  passed  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  sum  was  paid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  $288,000. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  the  agents  receive  that  amount  directly,  or  what 
action  did  they  take  in  connection  with  the  collection  of  the  amount? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  was  thought  at  first  that  it  would  be  necessary  for  one 


22  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

of  the  agents  to  go  to  Washington.  I  came  to  Washington,  but  before 
I  had  arrived  here  the  Treasury  Department  had  decided  to  issufi  a 
warrant  and  to  send  it  on  to  Nashville,  and  that  was  done. 

Senator  PASCO.  Were  you  at  Nashville  when  it  was  received? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  it  made  payable  to  the  agents? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  was  made  payable  to  the  book  agents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  what  was  done  with  that  amount,  whether  a 
part  of  it  was  paid  to  anyone  else ;  and  if  so,  how  much  ? 

Mr,  SMITH.  The  warrant  was  deposited  with  the  Fourth  National 
Bank  of  Nashville  for  collection,  and  we  paid  Mr.  Stahlman,  the  attor- 
ney, by  order  of  the  book  committee,  35  per  cent  of  the  amount,  which 
was  $100,800. 

Senator  PASCO.  Can  you  tell  me  whether  that  amount  was  paid  in 
one  or  more  checks? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  gave  Mr.  Sfeahlman  a  New  York  exchange  for 
$40,000,  and  we  gave  him  two  checks  on  the  Fourth  National  Bank  of 
Nashville,  one  for  $33,000,  and  one  for  $25,000.  The  incidental  expenses 
which  we  had  gone  to  in  the  way  of  telegrams  and  one  thing  and 
another,  including  two  notes  from  Major  Stahlman  for  $1,000  each  and 
the  interest  on  those,  and  including  a  note  for  $350  which  we  had  taken 
in  payment  of  a  debt  from  another  firm,  aggregating  $2,800.  That 
makes  up  the  amount. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  that  amount  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman  in  connec- 
tion with  any  contract  or  agreement  made  with  him? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  When  was  that  agreement  made? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  recollect  just  now  the  exact  date. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  it  long  before  the  money  was  collected? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sometime  before. 

Senator  PASCO.  A  year  or  more? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  possibly  three  or  four  years. 

Senator  PASCO.  Who  made  that  con  tract? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  was  made  by  the  authority  of  the  book  committee. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  by  whom  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  By  Barbee'and  Smith,  the  agents. 

Senator  PASCO.  With  Mr.  Stahlman? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  you  got  that  contract? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Will  you  produce  it? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  here  it  is. 

The  contract  is  as  follows: 

Articles  of  agreement  between  Barbee  <$•  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  South,  and  E.  B.  Stahlman. 

Witness:  First.  That  we,  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  South,  do  hereby  give  power  of  attorney  to  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  to  prose- 
cute our  claim  before  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  for  the  use  and  abuse  of 
the  publishing  house  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  by  the  armies  of 
the  United  States  during  the  war  between  the  States  from  A.  D.  1861  to  1865. 

Second.  We,  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
South,  do  hereby  agree  that  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  shall  receive  as  compensation 
for  his  services  35  per  cent  of  whatever  sum  shall  be  collected  from  the  United  States 
for  the  liquidation  of  the  aforesaid  claim. 

Third.  It  is  hereby  agreed  between  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South,  party  of  the  first  part,  and  E.  B.  Stahlman,  party  of  the 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH-  23 

second  part,  that  should  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  make  no  appropriation  for 
the  liquidation  of  the  aforesaid  claim,  then,  in  that  case,  no  compensation  shall  be 
paid  to  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  for  his  services,  from  any  source  whatever,  and  he 
shall  have  no  recourse  upon  us  or  onr  successors  in  office  forever. 

Fourth.  We.  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
South,  do  hereby  agree  and  covenant  that  this  power  of  attorney  herein  and  hereby 
conveyed  to  the  aforesaid  E.  B.  Stahlman  shall  continue  in  full  force  and  effect  until 
the  final  adjournment  of  the  Fifty-fifth  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH, 
Book  Agents  M.  E.  Church  South. 

July  29,  1895.  E.  B.  STAHLMAN. 

Senator  PASCO.  Is  this  signature  of  Barbee  and  Smith  in  your  hand- 
writing, or  in  Mr.  Barbee's? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  is  in  Mr.  Barbee's. 

Senator  PASCO.  Were  you  present  when  this  cor  tract  was  executed? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  can  not  say  that  I  was  there  just  at  that  time.  I  was 
present  at  the  meeting  of  the  book  committee,  when  the  contract  was 
ordered. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  approved  of  the  contract  at  the  time1? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  At  the  time  that  you  and  Dr.  Barbee  signed  these 
telegrams  to  Senator  Bate  and  myself,  in  reply  to  my  letter  and  his 
telegram,  you  knew  of  the  existence  of  this  contract? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Explain  why  it  was  that  ypu  utterly  denied  the  exist- 
ence of  a  contract  for  "40  per  cent  or  any  other  sum,"  as  it  was  put  in 
Senator  Bate's  telegram  and  in  reply  to  my  letter  calling  for  all  the 
information  you  had  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  SMITH.  1  do  not  know  as  to  that  particular  expression  in  your 
letter — all  the  information  I  had  on  the  subject. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  said  in  my  letter,  "  but  as  a  matter  of  caution  it 
will  be  very  well  for  me  to  have  a  positive  denial  from  you  which  I  can 
use  if  it  appears  necessary  either  before  the  bill  comes  up  for  action  or 
on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  so  I  suggest  that  you  send  me  a  telegram 
on  Monday  as  to  the  facts  of  the  case;"  and  Senator  Bate's  telegram 
says  "  Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Satur- 
day as  to  Stahlman  having  fee  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee  in  case 
of  payment  of  your  claim." 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  understood  from  your  letter  that  there  was  a  rumor 
circulating  at  the  Capitol  for  the  evident  purpose  of  obstructing  our 
bill  to  the  effect  that  we  had  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman  for  40  per 
cent.  We  also  understood  from  your  letter  that  you  wished  a  denial 
of  that  rumor,  and  it  was  with  that  understanding  that  we  sent  you  the 
telegram.  In  regard  to  Senator  Bate,  bis  telegram  came  later.  He 
evidently  had  not  met  you  or  heard  of  our  telegram  to  you. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  inferred  that  he  had  not. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  he  asked  us  to  telegraph  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's 
letter  of  Saturday  as  to  the  fee  of  40  per  cent.  To  that  part  of  his 
telegram  we  replied,  saying,  "  We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m. 
as  follows" — and  then  we  repeated  our  telegram  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  PASCO  (reading  the  remainder  of  the  telegram  to  Senator 
Bate).  "The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to 
deny  it." 

Mr.  SMITH.  To  the  latter  part  of  Mr.  Bate's  telegram  we  made  no 
reply.  In  other  words,  he  said  that  if  there  were  any  fee  paid,  that,  in 
his  judgment,  would  damage  the  bill,  so  we  made  no  reply  to  that 
at  all. 


24  METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  recollect  which  of  the  two  telegrams  that 
were  sent  to  me  were  sent  out  from  your  office  first? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  the  one  saying  that  your  letter  of  the  5th  was 
received.  That  was  sent  first. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  am  pretty  sure  that  the  other  reached  me  first,  but 
Dr.  Barbee  agrees  with  you,  that  the  one  which  I  received  first  was  sent 
last. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  that  is  correct. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  and  Dr.  Barbee  consult  with  reference  to 
sending  these  telegrams? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  we  read  your  letter  and  thought  that  we  under- 
stood what  you  meant. 

Senator  PASCO.  Had  you  debated  as  to  whether  you  would  send  a 
full  and  complete  answer,  or  whether  you  would  send  one  telling  only 
part  of  the  truth  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  thought,  in  relation  to  the  latter  part  of  Senator 
Bate's  telegram,  that  it  was  a  matter  which  belonged  entirely  to  the  book 
committee  as  to  what  compensation  was  to  be  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman. 

Senator  STEWART.  Senator  Bate  telegraphed  to  you  as  follows: 

Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I  would 
like  to  hear  from  you  also.  In  my  judgment,  if  true  it  will  endanger  the  bill. 

WILLIAM  B.  BATE. 

And  your  answer  was—* 

Hon.  W.B.  BATE: 

We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m.  as  follows :  "  The  statement  is  untrue,  and 
you  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH." 

Now,  do  you  claim  that  that  was  not  a  denial  of  the  facts  stated  in 
Senator  Bate's  telegram,  to  wit,  "a  fee  of  40  per  center  any  other  fee?" 

.Mr.  SMITH.  The  words  "any  other  fee"  were  not  in  Senator  Pasco's 
letter. 

Senator  STEWART.  But  Senator  Bate  says  "I  would  like  to  hear 
from  you  also."  Do  you  not  regard  this  telegram  from  him  as  covering 
the  whole  case? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  STEWART.  Did  you  not  believe  that  he  would  so  understand 
it? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Had  there  been  anything  in  your  previous  corre- 
spondence with  Senator  Bate  or  myself  which  led  you  to  believe  that 
we  desired  to  cover  up  anything  or  that  we  desired  to  get  anything 
other  than  the  whole  truth  in  regard  to  the  matter? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  recollect  anything. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  or  did  you  not  suppose  that  we  wanted  the 
whole  truth  when  I  sent  my  letter  and  Senator  Bate  sent  his  telegram? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  thought  that  you  wanted  a  denial  of  the  40  per  cent 
rumor. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  think  we  wanted  anything  but  the  truth  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  supposed  that  that  was  what  you  wanted. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  think  that  we  wanted  you  to  deceive  the 
Senate? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Then  explain  what  you  did  mean. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  impression  that  the  letter  and  telegram  made  on 
me  was  that  you  wanted  us  to  deny  that  rumor  about  40  per  cent. 

Senator  PASCO.  Even  if  you  had  to  tell  a  lie  about  it? 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  25 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  I  would  not  put  it  in  that  way. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  we  wanted  it  badly  enough  to  get  you  to  He 
about  it? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  feel  that  you  were  replying  fully  and  can- 
didly to  Senator  Bate's  telegram1? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  But  you  said  that  you  withheld  answer  to  a  part  of  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  did  think  that  it  was  not  necessary  to  answer  a  part 
of  Senator  Bate's  telegram. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  felt  that  you  were  withholding  the  truth  so  far 
as  that  was  concerned? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  felt  that  that  was  a  matter  which  belonged  entirely 
to  the  book  committee. 

Senator  PASCO.  Why  did  you  not  say  so  in  your  telegram  to  Senator 
Bate? 

Mr.  SMITH.  It  did  not  occur  to  us  to  do  so. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  did  not  wish  to  place  him  in  possession  of  all 
the  facts. 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  said  in  his  telegram  that  if  any  fee  was  paid  it 
would  damage  our  bill.  That  bill  had  been  in  progress  for  thirty 
years,  and  we  could  not  understand  why  Senator  Bate  would  want 
information  that  would  damage  a  just  claim. 

Senator  CLAY.  Did  not  Senator  Bate  distinctly  ask  you  in  his  tele- 
gram whether  you  were  to  pay  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee? 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  referred  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter,  and  that  letter 
does  not  call  for  any  statement  except  as  to  the  40  per  cent. 

Senator  PASCO.  Senator  Bate's  telegram  is:  "Telegraph  to-day 
answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlmau  hav- 
ing fee  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee,"  and  in  my  letter  I  said:  "I 
suggest  that  you  send  me  a  telegram  on  Monday  as  to  the  facts  of  the 
case."  I  did  not  ask  you  there  for  a  denial,  but  that  you  should  give 
me  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  so  understood. 

Senator  PASCO.  But  did  you  give  me  the  facts  of  the  case?  What 
were  the  facts  of  the  case? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  facts  of  the  case  as  referred  to  in  your  letter?  You 
said  that  you  wanted  a  denial  of  the  rumor. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  facts  of  the  case  were  that  you  had  made  a 
contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman  to  pay  him  35  per  cent  of  the  amount 
recovered.  Was  not  that  part  of  the  facts  of  the  case? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  did  not  understand  it  in  that  way  in  connection  with 
your  letter. 

Senator  PASCO.  Then  state  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  stated  that  we  understood 

Senator  PASCO.  What  were  the  facts  of  the  case? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  facts  of  the  case  were  that  there  had  been  a  rumor 
around  the  Capitol  to  the  effect  that  we  were  to  pay  a  fee  of  40  per 
cent,  and  you  asked  us  to  authorize  a  denial  of  that  rumor,  which  we  did. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  also  asked  for  the  facts  of  the  case;  why  did  you 
not  give  them?  You  understood  that  I  wanted  to  get  at  the  truth. 
What  were  the  facts  of  the  case  in  relation  to  the  contract? 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  refer  to  the  contract 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  not  that  what  I  was  inquiring  about? 

Mr.  SMITH.  You  are  evidently  inquiring  the  facts  in  regard  to  this 
rumor. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  were  the  facts  in  connection  with  the  rumor 


26  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

that  Mr.  Stall Imau  was  to  receive  40  per  cent?  What  was  the  truth  in 
that  respect! 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  did  not  express  anything  along  that  line. 

Senator  PASCO.  Tell  us  what  the  truth  was  in  respect  to  that.  Was 
Mr.  Stahluian  to  receive  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  he  to  receive  any  other  per  cent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  was  to  receive  35  per  cent. 

Senator  PASCO.  Then  the  facts  of  the  case  were  that  Stahluian  was 
to  receive  35  per  cent  iustead  of  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  you  connect  the  contract  with  your  letter,  that  is  the 
fact. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  not  understand  that  I  was  trying  to  get  at 
the  facts  of  the  case? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  did  you  understand  by  this  part  of  Sen- 
ator Pasco's  letter:  "It  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  get  any  contradic- 
tion, because  I  knew  very  well  that  the  agents  of  the  publishing  house 
knew  better  how  to  conduct  their  trust  than  to  make  such  an  improvi- 
dent bargain,  and  1  knew  also  that  there  was  no  power  to  make  such  a 
contract,  so  I  did  not  hesitate  to  denounce  it  as  a  malicious  slander.'' 
Did  you  infer  from  that  that  he  had  reference  solely  to  the  power  of  the 
Book  Concern  to  make  a  contract  for  40  per  cent,  or  did  you  not  inter 
that  he  challenged  the  right  of  the  Book  Concern  to  make  a  contract  for 
any  per  cent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  inferred  from  that  that  Senator  Pasco  thought  that 
the  book  agents  could  not  make  a  contract. 

Senator  PASCO.  He  asked  you  for  the  facts  of  the  case.  Did  you  not 
understand  him  as  inquiring  about  the  making  of  any  contract? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  we  did  not. 

Senator  CLAY.  Did  Barbee  and  Smith  know  that  there  was  a  con- 
tract with  Stahlman'? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  CLAY.  But  you  telegraphed,  in  the  face  of  that,  that  there 
was  no  contract  for  40  per  cent  or  for  any  other  fee? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  we  did  not. 

Senator  CLAY.  Senator  Bate  asked  you  distinctly  as  to  a  "fee  of  40 
per  cent  or  any  other  fee." 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  did  not  answer  that  part  of  Senator  Bate's  telegram. 

Senator  CLAY.  You  said  in  your  answer  that  he  was  authorized  to 
deny  the  statement  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  statement  that  there  was  to  be  a  fee  of  40  per  cent. 

Senator  CLAY.  But  the  telegram  from  Senator  Bate  asked  distinctly 
whether  there  was  to  be  a  fee  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee. 

Mr.  SMITH.  But  the  words  "any  other  fee"  are  not  set  forth  in 
Senator  Pasco's  letter. 

Senator  CLAY.  Then  your  answer  was  sent  for  the  purpose  of  mis- 
leading the  Senate,  and  was  intended  to  mislead  the  Senate? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Are  you  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  South? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  How  long  have  you  been  connected  with  that  church  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Some  twenty  years. 

Senator  PASCO.  Tell  us  whether  you  had  any  communication  with 
Mr.  Stahlman  after  the  telegram  and  letter  were  received  from  Senator 
Bate  and  myself? 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  27 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  had,  I  think,  a  telegram  from  Mr.  Stahlman  in  rela- 
tion to  exorbitant  fees. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  mean  when  this  matter  was  pending  in  the  Senate, 
between  the  5th  and  7th  of  March. 

Mr.  SMITH.  My  recollection  is  that  we  had  a  letter  from  Major  Stahl- 
mau  on  Monday,  the  5th  of  March. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  get  any  telegram  from  him? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  that  we  had  one  the  day  before. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  get  any  from  him  on  the  7th,  the  day  that 
you  received  Senator  Bate's  telegram? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  recollect  that  we  did. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  send  him  any  telegram  on  that  day? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  we  sent  him  a  telegram  asking  him  to  call  upon  you. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  he  telegraph  you  whether  he  had  done  so  or  not? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  did  he  say? 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  said  that  he  had  called  on  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  PASCO.  On  the  7th  of  March? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  suppose  it  must  have  been  on  the  7th  of  March  or  on 
the  morning  of  the  8th  that  he  called  upon  you,  and  that  you  said  you 
had  all  the  information  you  needed. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  you  got  the  letters  and  telegrams  which  you 
received  in  the  meantime? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Not  with  me. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  understood  Dr.  Barbee  to  say  that  they  were  in 
your  possession. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Do  you  mean  the  telegram  received  from  you? 

Senator  PASCO.  The  telegrams  received  from  Mr.  Stahlman  during 
the  time  that  this  matter  was  pending  in  the  Senate.  Dr.  Barbee  said 
there  was  a  correspondence  between  the  book  agents  and  Mr.  Stahlman. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  not  those  papers  with  me. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  know  where  that  correspondence  is? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  take  it  that  we  can  get  it. 

Senator  CLAY.  Who  signed  the  telegram  to  Senator  Bate?  Was  it 
signed  by  yourself  or  Mr.  Barbee? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  know  who  wrote  it.  I  have  charge  of  the  pub- 
lishing, the  manufacturing,  and  the  general  office  affairs,  but  I  can  not 
say  which  of  us  wrote  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  Is  that  correspondence  in  this  city? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  unless  Mr.  Stahlman  has  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  Dr.  Barbee  said  that  you  had  it. 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  must  have  referred  to  something  else. 

Senator  PASCO.  No;  it  was  to  that  particular  subject  of  inquiry. 
The  committee  would  like  to  get  that  correspondence. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  I  can  get  it  for  you. 

Senator  PASCO.  Is  it  in  this  city  or  in  Nashville? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Major  Stahlman  may  have  it,  and  I  may  be  able  to  get 
it  this  afternoon. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  not  the  book  agents  copies  of  it? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  may  have  copies  at  home. 

Senator  PASCO.  Dr.  Barbee  said  that  there  was  a  correspondence, 
and  that  it  must  be  in  your  possession.  You  do  not  think  there  is  a 
copy  of  it  in  the  possession  of  the  book  agents  or  of  the  book  commit- 
tee here  in  Washington? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  I  think  not. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  committee  would  like  to  get  copies  of  that  cor- 
respondence. 


28  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Mr.  SMITH.  Very  well. 

Senator  PASCO.  'Then  you  admit  that  you  did  not  give  to  Senator 
Bate  or  myself  a  full  statement  of  the  matters  in  connection  with  this 
contract  at  the  time  that  we  made  the  inquiry? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  did  so  far  as  your  letter  was  concerned;  but  as  to 
General  Bate,  we  did  not  reply  to  the  latter  part  of  his  telegram. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  you  ever  had  any  experience  as  a  witness  in 
court  f 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  feel  that  you  were  telling,  as  a  witness  in 
court  is  expected  to  tell,  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but 
the  truth  ?  Did  you  think  that  you  were  giving  the  whole  truth  in  this 
matter? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  so  far  as  referring  to  this  40  per  cent. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  How  long  was  it  after  the  passage  of  the  bill 
before  you  saw  Mr.  Stahlmau? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  think  that  I  saw  Major  Stahlmau  about  a  week  after 
that. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  he"  have  any  conference  with  you  and  Dr. 
Barbee  with  reference  to  what  had  transpired  here  respecting  the 
passage  of  the  bill! 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  I  do  not  recollect. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  learn  from  him  whether  he  had  a 
conference  with  any  of  the  Senators  respecting  the  inquiry  made  by 
Senator  Pasco  as  to  the  payment  of  his  fee? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  He  said  nothing  to  you  as  to  having  made  any 
denial  that  any  fee  was  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Nothing  whatever  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  do  not  recollect  anything  of  that  kind. 

Senator  CLAY.  Did  you  keep  up  with  the  proceedings  of  Congress 
when  this  bill  was  being  considered  in  the  Senate? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  CLAY.  Did  you  not  know  that  it  was  stated  on  the  floor  of 
the  Senate  by  several  Senators,  time  and  again,  that  no  fees  were  to  be 
paid,  and  did  you  not  know  that  an  amendment  was  offered  providing 
that  no  more  than  $5,000  should  be  paid  for  lawyer's  fees,  but  that  in 
view  of  the  statements  made  that  nothing  was  to  be  paid,  that  amend- 
ment had  been  withdrawn? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  fact  is  that  I  did  not  see  a  copy  of  the  Congressional 
Eecord  until  the  28th  of  March. 

Senator  CLAY.  Was  not  that  fact  published  in  the  Nashville  news- 
papers as  to  Mr  Lodge's  amendment? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir.  The  first  intimation  we  had  that  there  was  any 
statement  made  on  the  floor  was  when  somebody  sent  us  a  copy  of  the 
Congressional  Kecord. 

Senator  CLAY.  You  knew  that  the  statement  was  made  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  that  no  fees  were  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes. 

Senator  CLAY.  And  that  statement  was  made  as  coming  from  Barbee 
and  Smith  and  from  Stahlman? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  they  were  represented  as  coming  from  us. 

Senator  CLAY.  You  had  read  the  Congressional  Record  and  you  knew 
what  had  transpired  before  the  money  was  paid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No;  we  got  the  money  on  the  2lst  of  March,  and  it  was 
the  28th  of  March  when  we  got  the  Congressional  Eecord. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  29 

Senator  CLAY.  You  manifestly  intended,  when  you  sent  your  tele- 
gram, to  conceal  part  of  the  facts.  You  did  not  want  it  known  that 
there  was  a  contract  to  pay  35  per  cent. 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  thought  that  Senator  Bate  ought  not  to  have  asked 
whether  any  fee  was  to  be  paid  when  he  telegraphed  to  us  that  the 
payment  of  any  fee  would  probably  damage  the  bill.  We  felt  that 
the  bill  was  a  just  one  and  ought  to  pass  on  its  merits,  regardless  of 
the  question  of  fee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  want  to  ask  you  about  the  disposition  of 
Mr.  Stahlman's  fee  except  in  connection  with  church  people.  Do  you 
know  of  any  use  being  made  of  any  portion  of  this  fee  for  the  benefit 
of  anybody  connected  with  the  church? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  I  do  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  For  the  benefit  either  of  individuals  or  of  charities'? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  heard  that  Mr.  Stahhnan  gave  $500  to  the  Board  of 
Missions,  but  whether  out  of  that  fund  or  not  I  can  not  say. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  was  not  required  to  give  anything  either  in  his 
contract  or  by  a  verbal  understanding? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  do  not  know  of  any  understanding  with  him 
that  he  was  to  give  anything  to  anybody? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  that  you  thought  Senator  Bate  ought  not 
to  have  asked  about  the  fee — why  did  you  not  say  to  Senator  Bate 
that  that  was  a  matter  which  ought  not  be  inquired  about,  instead  of 
answering  as  you  did? 

Mr.  SMITH.  If  we  had  done  that  he  might  have  thought  us  a  little 
impertinent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  was  a  friend  of  the  claim,  was  he  not,  and  had 
been  doing  a  good  deal  of  work  to  get  it? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  thought  it  was  better  to  keep  him  in  the  dark 
as  to  what  the  fee  was? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  thought  that  that  was  a  matter  which  did  not  con- 
cern him  in  the  least. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  did  not  say  that  to  him. 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  we  did  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  say  anything  equivalent  to  that? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  supposed  that  he  would  understand  that  the  tele- 
gram was  sufficiently  plain  as  to  what  it  referred  to. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  is  all  the  explanation  you  have  to  make? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  all. 

Senator  CLAY.  When  did  you  receive  the  money? 

Mr.  SMITH.  On  the  21st  of  March. 

Senator  CLAY.  And  when  did  you  see  the  Congressional  Eecord? 

Mr.  SMITH.  On  the  28th  of  March. 

Senator  CLAY.  And  you  wrote  to  Senator  Pasco,  when? 

Mr.  SMITH.  On  the  29th. 

Senator  PASCO.  Who  sent  you  the  copy  of  the  Congressional  Eecord 
which  you  received  on  the  28th  of  March? 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  have  no  idea. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  had  not  received  a  copy  of  the  Eecord  when  the 
matter  was  pending  before  the  Senate? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  was  the  first  copy  of  the  Eecord  I  ever  saw.  I  am 
not  a  politician;  I  am  a  business  man. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  was  the  date  of  the  Eecord  that  you  sawT 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  8th  of  March. 
S.  Eep.  1416 3 


30  METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

Mr.  OAKLAND  (counsel).  In  interpreting  the  letter  of  Senator  Pasco 
in  relation  to  the  facts,  did  you  consider  that  it  referred  to  anything 
more  than  a  malicious  rumor? 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  is  exactly  what  it  referred  to. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  And  you  answered  with  that  impression  on  your 
mind? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  There  are  three  dispatches,  all  of  the  7th  of  March, 
two  to  Senator  Pasco  and  one  to  Mr.  Stahlman.  Which  of  them  was 
sent  last? 

Mr.  SMITH.  The  one  to  Mr.  Stahlman.  We  felt  that  he  was  our 
agent  and  attorney  having  control  of  the  matter,  and  that  if  Senator 
Pasco  wished  information  he  could  get  it  from  him. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  In  sending  these  dispatches,  were  you  and  Mr.  Barbee 
together? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Yes;  my  recollection  is  that  we  were  there  together.  Of 
course,  not  supposing  that  the  dispatches  would  create  as  much  talk  as 
they  did,  we  made  no  special  memorandum  as  to  who  wrote  them. 

Mr.  FAIRBANKS.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  Senator  Bate's  tel- 
egram. It  is:  "Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to 
you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman  having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other 
fee."  Did  you  understand  what  that  language  meant? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  understood  from  that  that  he  wanted  to  know 
whether  we  had  telegraphed  to  Senator  Pasco.  He  evidently  had  not 
met  Senator  Pasco  on  the  7th  of  March,  and  he  asked  us  to  wire  him. 
In  reply  to  that  we  told  him  that  we  had  wired  Senator  Pasco,  and 
what  we  said  to  him.  As  to  the  second  part  of  Senator  Bate's  tele- 
gram (which  is  not  mentioned  in  Senator  Pasco's  letter),  that  is  a  part 
which  we  did  not  answer. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  say  in  your  telegram  to  Senator  Bate, 
"We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m.,  as  follows:  'The  statement 
is  untrue,  and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it.'"  Did  you  not 
intend  that  to  be  the  answer  to  Senator  Bate's  inquiry  as  to  whether 
there  was  a  fee  of  "40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee?" 

Mr.  SMITH.  Certainly  not,  because  the  telegram  to  Senator  Pasco 
had  been  sent  possibly  an  hour  before  that. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  If  anybody,  not  knowing  the  facts,  had  been 
given  your  answer,  would  he  not  have  been  justified  in  the  conclusion 
that  no  fee  whatever  was  to  be  paid  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Senator  Bate  did  know  what  Senator  Pasco  had  written 
in  his  letter,  because  he  refers  to  it. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Reading  these  two  telegrams  together,  would 
not  one  come  to  the  conclusion  that  no  fee  whatever  was  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  Not  if  the  letter  was  read  along  with  them. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Was  it  not  the  intention  of  this  answer  to  be 
a  full  reply  to  Senator  Bate's  telegram. 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  not  intend  Senator  Bate  to  infer  that 
DO  fee  was  to  be  paid  ? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  you  intend? 

Mr.  SMITH.  We  intended  him  to  understand  that  we  had  wired  Sen- 
ator Pasco  and  what  we  had  said  to  Senator  Pasco. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  intended  that  Senator  Pasco  should  understand 
that  no  fee  was  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir. 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  31 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  you  intend  him  to  understand! 

Mr.  SMITH.  That  we  did  not  have  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman  for 
40  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  concealed  the  fact  that  you  had  a  contract 
for  35  per  cent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  He  did  not  ask  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  never  told  him  at  any  time? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No. 

Senator  PASCO.  Either  before  or  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  did  you 
tell  Senator  Bate  or  myself  that  there  was  a  contract  for  35  per  cent? 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  I  never  did. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Explain  that  payment  of  $500  by  Mr.  Stahlman  to 
the  missions. 

Mr.  SMITH.  I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  can  not  say  that 
Mr.  Stahlman  paid  it  out  of  this  money. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  I  wanted  to  know  was  whether  Stahlman  was 
under  any  obligation  to  pay  anything,  either  by  his  contract  or  by  a 
verbal  agreement. 

Mr.  SMITH.  No,  sir;  not  at  all. 


TESTIMONY  OF  E.  B.  STAHLMAN. 

E.  B.  STAHLMAN  sworn  and  examined. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  State  your  business. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Well,  I  suppose  that  now  it  may  be  said  I  am 
engaged  in  a4  general  way  in  conducting  the  business  affairs  of  a  news- 
paper. My  occupation  for  twenty-five  years  or  more  was  that  of  a 
railroad  official.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  I  am  now  engaged  exclu- 
sively in  the  newspaper  business,  though  I  look  after  its  business 
affairs.  I  have  other  interests — mercantile  business,  stock  yards,  a 
printing  company,  a  fertilizing  company,  and  some  other  things.  I 
look  after  all  these  things  more  or  less;  but  I  have  my  office  room  in 
the  newspaper  building,  and  my  principal  business  is  in  looking  after 
the  business  interests  of  my  newspaper. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  newspaper  is  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  Nashville  Daily  Banner. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  an  attorney? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  can  state  to  the  committee  what  your  connec- 
tion has  been  to  this  case  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South  as  to  a  bill  for 
the  payment  of  damages.  State  what  has  been  your  connection  with  it. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  have  known  something  of  the  claim  for  ten  years. 
Being  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  I  felt  some  interest  in  the 
claim.  I  had  a  good  deal  of  business  in  Washington  in  connection  with 
railroad  matters,  appearing  before  various  committees  in  Congress,  and, 
being  here  and  having  occasional  time  to  spare,  I  took  some  interest  in 
that  matter.  I  recollect  that  as  early" as  1890  I  was  asked  to  look  after 
it  somewhat,  and  I  came  here  and  made  some  inquiry  concerning  its 
status.  In  1891  and  1892  I  made  some  inquiries  from  members  of  the 
House  and  members  of  the  Senate,  and  possibly  from  Senator  Bate,  who 
introduced  the  bill. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That,  you  say,  was  in  1892? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  In  189 1  or  1892 — along  in  those  years.  The  bill  had 
been  introduced  in  the  House  by  Mr.  Washington,  of  Tennessee.  I 
made  some  inquiry  there.  I  talked  with  members  of  the  Claims  Com- 
mittee of  the  House  about  it,  and  I  asked  them  to  help  the  case  along. 


32  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

I  undertook  to  indicate  what  were  iii  my  judgment  the  salient  points  in 
the  claim.  In  1890, 1891,  and  1892  I  was  here  a  good  deal.  Whenever 
Congress  was  in  session  there  was  something  of  interest  to  the  railroads, 
and  I  had  to  come  here.  In  1891  or  1892  I  came  here  and  had  the  pleas- 
ure of  an  introduction  to  the  distinguished  chairman  of  this  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  was  that? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  early  in  1892.  Mr.  Sam  Tate,  of  Memphis, 
gave  me  an  introduction,  and  I  think  I  was  presented  by  Kepresentative 
Brownlow,  who  was  then  in  the  employment  of  the  Senate.  I  talked 
with  the  chairman  of  this  committee  about  it.  I  knew  that  he  had 
made  an  adverse  report.  I  told  you  that  I  knew  that  conditions  had 
changed  since  the  report  was  made  and  that  the  decisions  of  courts  in 
reference  to  claims  of  that  nature  had  brought  about  a  different  condi- 
tion of  affairs,  and  that  I  hoped  you  would,  in  the  interest  of  the  peo- 
ple who  were  interested  in  that  claim,  give  it  your  support.  You  said 
to  me  that  you  had  made  an  adverse  report  and  that  you  did  not 
exactly  see  how  you  could  do  anything  for  it ;  while  you  did  not  care  to 
say  in  view  of  what  had  transpired,  in  regard  to  claims  of  a  like  nature, 
you  would  support  the  claim,  you  felt  that  you  would  do  nothing  against 
it.  I  had  talked  also  with  Mr.  Enloe  and  Mr.  Washington,  and  Mr.  Enloe 
(my  recollection  is)  made  a  favorable  report  on  the  bill.  Previous  reports 
had  been  made  in  favor  of  an  appropriation  of  $288,000.  I  talked  with 
Senator  Bate  about  it,  and  I  talked  with  Senator  Hoar  about  it,  and 
also  with  Senator  Harris,  of  Tennessee. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Was  not  Senator  Harris  quite  as  familiar  with 
the  claim  as  you  were? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  think  he  was.  He  had  not  introduced  the 
bill  and  had  not  given  it  any  special  attention.  Senator  Morgan  had 
made  the  report ;  and  when  1  talked  with  Senator  Harris  about  it  in  1891 
or  1892,  his  memory  was  refreshed  and  the  facts  came  back  to  him.  I 
did  not  hesitate  to  say  to  Senators  at  that  time  (I  may  have  said  it  to  the 
chairm  an  of  this  committee)  if  any  question  were  raised  as  to  the  payment 
of  a  fee  (and  I  could  certainly  have  said  it  with  perfect  freedom  and 
truth  and  candor)  that  I  had  no  pecuniary  interest  in  the  claim  one  way 
or  the  other.  I  came  here  occasionally  and  did  what  I  could  in  helping 
it  along.  I  had  a  good  business  in  connection  with  railroads,  a  position 
which  paid  me  a  good  deal  of  money — a  very  trying  position,  yet  a  very 
profitable  one.  I  was  vice-president  of  the  Louisville  and  Nashville 
Eailroad  up  to  1890  and  vice-president  of  the  Louisville,  New  Albany  and 
Chicago  Kailroad  for  quite  a  period  of  time.  Subsequently  I  was  elected 
commissioner  of  the  Southern  Kail  way  and  Steamship  Association,  from 
which  (with  a  railway  receivership)  I  drew  $75,000  in  three  years  and 
a  half,  to  which  was  added  my  ordinary  traveling  expenses,  amount- 
ing to  several  thousand  dollars  more.  I  tired  of  the  railroad  service. 
There  were  a  great  many  vexatious  things  connected  with  it.  I 
believe  that  I  had  the  confidence  of  everybody  in  the  business.  I 
know  that  it  took  them  five  months  to  find  some  one  to  succeed  me 
after  I  had  finally  and  emphatically  determined  not  to  accept  the  office 
again.  I  may  say  the  same  in  reference  to  the  Louisville  and  Nash- 
ville Eailroad.  When  I  resigned  the  vice-presidency  of  that  road  in 
1890  the  directors  refused  to  accept  my  resignation.  I  insisted,  and 
they  finally,  after  months  of  delay,  did  agree  to  accept  my  resignation, 
and  elected  a  successor,  whose  connection  with  the  business  did  not 
last  more  than  a  year  and  a  half.  After  I  severed  my  connection 
with  the  Southern  Railway  and  Steamship  Association,  in  1895, 1  was 
entreated  by  a  lot  of  friends  in  New  York,  who  had  a  large  interest  in 
a  leased  line  of  the  Atchisou,  Topeka  and  Santa  Fe  Bailroad,  eleven 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  33 

or  twelve  hundred  miles  long,  to  take  the  receivership  of  that  line.  They 
offered  me  $10,000  or  $15,000  a  year,  and  said  that  the  salary  would 
grow,  assuming  that  I  would  manage  my  trust  as  they  believed  I  would. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  will  see  that  all  that  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  matter  which  we  are  inquiring  into. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  am  just  leading  up  to  that  point.  I  seem  to  come 
here  under  a  sort  of  cloud,  and  I  hope  the  committee  will  give  me  an 
opportunity  of  stating  my  business  and  my  relations  to  this  matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Be  as  brief  as  you  can. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  As  I  said,  that  position — the  receivership — was  ten- 
dered to  me.  In  the  meantime  the  members  of  the  book  committee  of  the 
Methodist  Church  South,  feeling  that  no  progress  was  being  made  in  the 
adjustment  of  their  claim,  kept  urging  me  to  take  an  interest  in  the  collec- 
tion of  it.  I  may  say,  as  a  churchman  (although  1  may  not  appear  so), 
that  I  felt  an  interest,  a  very  great  interest,  in  the  collection  of  this  claim, 
and  my  feelings  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  my  desire  to  help  them  in  the 
matter.  Finally  they  said  to  me,  "We  want  you  to  go  to  Washington 
and  take  charge  of  this  matter."  We  discussed  the  matter  pro  and  con, 
and  finally  it  was  agreed  that  35  per  cent  of  the  claim  would  be  paid 
to  me  when  collected.  1  came  here.  Not  immediately,  because  I  was 
still  engaged,  as  already  stated,  against  my  wish,  with  the  Southern 
Railway  and  Steamship  Association.  Although  I  had  entered  into  this 
agreement  with  the  book  committee,  I  was  unable  to  do  anything  about 
the  claim,  and  really  there  did  not  seem  to  be  any  necessity  of  my  doing 
anything,  because  Congress  did  not  meet  until  the  first  Monday  in 
December  following,  and  I  did  not  get  rid  of  my  commission  in  the 
Southern  Railway  and  Steamship  Association  until  October,  1895. 
After  I  got  rid  of  my  work  in  connection  with  the  railroads  I  set  to  work 
upon  this  claim.  I  had,  however,  previously  said  to  the  book  commit- 
tee that  if  I  were  going  to  take  hold  of  the  matter,  I  would  want  the 
aid  of  the  book  committee  and  of  the  book  agents,  and  that  I  wanted 
them  to  place  themselves  in  the  position  of  a  client  to  be  governed  by 
their  attorney  in  regard  to  all  things  relating  to  the  claim. 

Senator  PASCO.  Who  were  the  members  of  the  committee  to  whom 
you  refer? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Dr.  Denny  was  one,  Mr.  Fite  was  another,  Dr. 
Young  was  another,  and  Mr.  Hamilton  was  another.  Dr.  Morgan  was 
the  chairman.  They  said  to  me  in  the  most  positive  terms  (which  I 
thought  very  proper  and  to  which  I  gave  ready  assent)  that  whatever 
was  done  with  reference  to  the  claim  was  to  be  done  in  such  a  way  as 
to  avoid  even  a  suspicion  that  anything  unclean  or  unseemly  was  done  to 
promote  the  passage  of  the  bill  or  the  payment  of  their  claim.  I  said 
to  them,  in  that  connection,  "Now,  gentlemen.  I  agree  with  you.  I 
think  that  that  ought  by  all  means  to  be  done.  Your  claim  has  merit. 
There  is  no  reason  on  earth  why  any  improper  methods  should  be 
resorted  to." 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Or  any  deception. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Or  any  deception.  I  said  that  the  thing  for  this 
committee  to  do  and  for  the  book  agents  to  do  was  to  refrain  from  say- 
ing anything  in  relation  to  the  matter  of  attorney's  fees  or  anything 
else,  because  if  I  went  to  Washington  as  their  representative  for  a  fee 
of  any  amount,  I  did  not  care  what  amount,  I  would  just  be  hounded 
day  in  and  day  out,  and  that  1  would  probably  fall  into  the  hands  of 
some  of  the  vultures  who  hang  around  the  Capitol,  which  would  involve 
the  passage  of  the  measure  in  questionable  methods.  They  agreed  to 
that.  I  came  here,  as  I  say.  The  first  thing  that  was  done  concerning 


34  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

this  matter  (and  I  did  it,  although  it  was  done  in  the  name  of  Barbee 
&  Smith)  were  letters  addressed  to  Representative  Washington  and  to 
Senator  Bate  and  Senator  Harris.  I  framed  the  letters  and  asked  Bar- 
bee  &  Smith  to  look  them  over  to  see  that  they  were  right  and  to  forward 
them.  This  is  the  letter  which  I  wrote  to  Barbee  &  Smith  at  that  time: 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  November  SS,  1895. 
Messrs.  BARBEK  &  SMITH, 

Agents  Publishing  House  M.  E.  Church  South,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

DEAR  SIR:  Enclosed  herewith  I  hand  you  copies  of  the  form  of  letters  which  I 
think  should  be  written  to  the  Hons.  Ishain  G.  Harris,  Win.  B.  Bate,  and  Jos.  E. 
Washington.  You  had  better  use  letter-heads  of  the  Publishing  House  in  having 
these  letters  copied.  Attached  to  the  letters  to  Messrs.  Bate  and  Washington  you 
will  find  copy  of  the  bill,  which  should  be  attached  to  the  letters  you  send  to  them. 
I  advise  that  these  letters  be  written  not  later  than  Wednesday  of  next  week,  and 
that  they  be  mailed  to  them  at  Washington  City.  The  letters,  in  order  to  reach  them, 
will  need  no  further  address  than  those  given. 

I  expect  to  be  in  Washington  when  Congress  convenes,  and  am  anxious  to  have 
the  bills  introduced  on  the  lirst  day  of  the  session,  if  possible,  and  referred  to  appro- 
priate "committees.  I  trust  you  will  see  to  it  that  these  letters  go  promptly  forward. 

YOURS  TRULY. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  (continuing).  The  letters,  I  was  assured,  were  sent, 
and  the  bill  was  introduced.  Almost  simultaneously  with  those  letters 
looking  to  the  immediate  introduction  of  the  bill  I  said  to  the  book 
agents,  "This  bill  ought  to  pass  Congress  within  a  few  years,  prob- 
ably this  session.  I  am  going  to  prepare  a  brief  statement  of  the  facts 
relating  to  the  claim  and  you  can  print  it  in  circular  form.  This  state- 
ment of  facts  ought  to  be  sent  to  every  prominent  minister  (if  you 
please  to  every  minister)  of  the  church,  and  to  the  laymen  of  the 
church."  This  statement  I  will  file  with  the  committee.  The  facts 
were  taken  from  the  Senate  committee  report  of  1878. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Senator  Morgan's  report? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes.  It  was  accompanied  by  a  circular  which  I 
prepared,  which  Barbee  &  Smith,  the  book  agents,  concurred  in,  and 
which  was  sent  with  the  circular.  I  will  file  a  copy  of  the  circular  and 
the  statement  with  the  committee. 

The  circular  and  statement  were  put  in  evidence,  and  are  as  follows : 

Statement  of  facts  relating  to  the  bill  pending  in  Congress  for  the  relief  of  the  Book  Agents 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South. 

The  following,  in  brief,  is  the  report  made  by  the  Committee  on  Claims  of  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress,  second  session  (S.  R.  146),  and  which  was  adopted 
and  reported  by  the  Committee  on  War  Claims  of  the  House  of  the  Fifty-first  Con- 
gress (H.  R.  3236),  and  also  by  the  War  Claims  Committee  of  the  Fifty-Second 
Congress  (H.  R.  2586). 

The  Committee  on  Claims  of  the  Senate  report  "that  the  Confederate  forces,  hav- 
ing occupied  Nashville  for  a  short  time  during  the  war,  evacuated  it  after  the  sur- 
render of  Fort  Donelson;  that  within  three  or  four  days  after  that  event  General 
Buell,  commanding  United  States  Army,  reached  Edgeiield,  a  village  on  opposite 
bank  of  Cumberland  River ;  that  the  mayor  of  Nashville,  together  with  city  officials 
and  citizens,  met  him  and  informed  him  of  the  city's  condition,  and  invited  him  to 
occupy  and  protect  the  city."  He  expressed  gratification  at  the  proceeding,  and 
assured  the  deputation  "  that  protection  to  both  persons  and  property  of  all  peace- 
able citizens  would  be  fully  extended  by  the  Army  of  the  United  States,"  and 
requested  the  mayor  to  so  inform  the  people  by  proclamation.  Whereupon  the 
mayor,  on  the  26th  of  February,  1862,  issued  his  proclamation  as  follows:  "  That  the 
committee  representing  the  city  authorities  and  people  had  called  on  General  Buell," 
etc. ;  "  that  the  interview  was  perfectly  satisfactory,  and  there  was  every  assurance 
of  safety  and  protection  to  the  people,  both  in  their  persons  and  their  property," 
etc.  (Signed)  R.  B.  Cheatham,  Mayor. 

On  the  same  day  (26th  of  February)  General  Buell  issued  his  proclamation,  in 
which  he  said :  "  We  are  in  arms  not  for  the  purpose  of  invading  the  rights  of  our 
fellow-countrymen  anywhere,  but  to  maintain  the  Union  and  protect  the  Constitu- 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  35 

tion.  *  *  *  Peaceable  citizens  are  not  to  be  molested  in  their  personal  property, 
all  wrongs  to  either  are  to  be  promptly  corrected,  and  the  offenders  brought  to  pun- 
ishment," etc.  "  If  the  necessities  of  the  public  require  the  use  of  private  property 
for  public  purposes  compensation  is  to  be  allowed,"  etc. 

From  the  date  of  this  proclamation  until  the  end  of  the  war  Nashville  was  under 
the  control  of  the  Federal  Army.  The  civil  authorities,  including  the  courts,  local 
and  Federal,  were  in  the  full  and  free  exercise  of  their  functions.  These  results  were 
the  fruits  of  the  proclamation  of  General  Buell,  restoring  that  part  of  Tennessee  to 
national  authority  and  giving  "the  full  measure  of  protection  to  persons  and  prop- 
erty consistent  with  a  necessary  subjection  to  military  government." 

General  Butler,  in  his  proclamation  at  New  Orleans,  stated  that  "all  rights  of 
property  of  whatever  kind  will  be  inviolate,  subject  only  to  the  laws  of  the  United 
States."  The  Supreme  Court,  in  the  case  of  "  The  Venice,"  decides  tbat  this  clause 
"reiterates  the  rules  established  by  the  legislative  and  executive  action  of  the 
National  Government  in  respect  to  the  portions  of  the  States  in  insurrection,  and 
occupied  and  controlled  by  the  troops  of  the  Union,"and  that  "  wherever  the  national 
troops  have  established  order  under  national  rule  the  right  of  person  and  property 
have  been  in  general  respected  and  enforced." 

There  was  no  formal  surrender  at  New  Orleans  or  Nashville;  but  in  Nashville 
there  was  formal  submission,  while  in  New  Orleans  the  mayor  refused  to  give  the 
pledge  of  submission. 

The  orders,  or  proclamation,  of  General  Buell  were  much  broader  and  more  definite 
than  General  Butler's.  They  reached  to  the  conduct  of  officers  and  men,  enjoining 
them  against  all  interference  with  property,  etc.,  and  expressly  piovided  for  com- 
pensation for  property  taken  for  public  use. 

Your  committee  are  impressed  with  the  conviction  that  the  orders  of  General  Buell 
gave  "the  full  measure  of  protection  to  persons  and  property  consistent  with  a 
necessary  subjection  to  military  government,"  and  that  citizens  of  Nashville  who 
remain  peaceable  and  their  property  can  not  be  regarded  as  remaining  enemies,  or 
their  property  as  enemy  property,  after  the  26th  of  February,  1862. 

The  people  engaged  freely  in  their  business  pursuits;  the  courts  were  opened;  the 
civil  administration  of  the  law  prevailed,  so  far  as  was  consistent  with  a  necessary 
subjection  to  military  discipline.  This  condition  of  affairs  is  satisfactorily  estab- 
lished by  the  history  of  this  property,  the  use  of  which  by  the  army  quartermasters 
is  the  foundation  of  this  claim. 

On  the  24th  of  May  proceedings  were  instituted  in  the  United  States  circuit 
court  at  Nashville  by  the  district  attorney  to  have  this  property  confiscated.  On 
the  3d  of  June,  1862,  the  "Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South," 
by  that  name  interposed  its  claim  to  the  property,  gave  security  for  costs,  and 
asked  to  be  allowed  to  intervene  for  its  rights  of  property  and  possession,  etc.  The 
bond  to  replevy  the  property  was  filed  on  the  4th  of  June,  1862.  Motions  were 
made  and  argued ;  answers,  pleas,  and  demurrers  were  filed  in  the  cause,  etc.  The 
case  was  continued  several  terms,  upon  application  of  the  United  States  district 
attorney,  until  April,  1864,  when  an  amended  petition  was  filed,  issues  were 
formed,  etc.  Judge  Catron,  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  presided  during  several  terms,  and  made  several  orders,  etc.  Finally,  after 
several  more  continuances  by  the  Government,  the  cause  was  dismissed  at  the 
November  term,  1865,  by  the  direction  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the  United  States. 

After  General  Buell  entered  Nashville  the  corporation  of  Book  Agents,  etc.,  con- 
tinued its  business  of  publishing  books,  tracts,  etc.,  and  doing  job  work  for  its  cus- 
tomers until  the  property  was  taken  possession  of  under  the  confiscation  proceedings, 
and  after  the  property  was  replevied  it  still  continued  business  and  remained  in 
the  possession  and  custody  of  the  Book  Agents  until  December,  1863,  when  the 
entire  establishment  was  taken  possession  of  by  Colonel  Donaldson,  chief  quarter- 
master of  the  Department  of  the  Cumberland,  by  order  of  Major-General  Thomas, 
commanding  general,  for  the  use  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States,  as  confiscable 
property,  and  so  held  and  used  until  the  13th  of  December,  1865,  when  what 
remained  of  it  was  returned  to  said  Book  Agents. 

The  proceedings  in  the  case  for  confiscation  were  conducted  with  as  much  regu- 
larity and  as  little  interruption  as  if  they  had  been  instituted  in  a  court  of  New  York. 
Judge  Catron,  one  of  the  Supreme  Court  judges  of  the  United  States,  held  the  court 
and  presided  with  as  little  obstruction  or  threat  from  the  enemy  as  he  did  in  the 
Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  and  the  national  authority  was  enforced  there 
through  the  courts,  and  they  administered  the  laws,  local  and  national,  so  far  as 
applicable  to  controversies  between  citizens,  as  completely  and  effectually  within 
the  territory  protected  by  the  Federal  armies  as  could  have  been  done  in  any  loyal 
State.  This  condition  of  the  country  gave  the  people  the  same  protection  under  the 
laws  of  the  United  States  as  is  provided  for  in  the  order  of  General  Buell,  viz,  "If 
the  necessities  of  the  public  service  should  require  the  use  of  private  property  for 
public  purposes  compensation  is  to  be  allowed."  In  Nashville  on  the  24th  of  May 


36  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

there  was  nothing  to  prevent  the  United  States,  through  its  courts,  from  asserting 
its  right  to  confiscate  this  property,  and  when  the  property  was  seized  and  taken 
possession  of  under  such  proceedings,  and  while  it  continued  in  the  custody  of  the 
court,  it  was  not  liable  to  seizure  or  capture  by  the  Army. 

But  the  Government  never  claimed  this  property  as  captured.  In  both  instances 
when  the  Government  seized  the  property,  first  under  confiscation  proceeding  and 
then  under  order  of  General  Thomas,  it  was  seized  for  confiscation  under  the 
penal  statutes  of  the  United  State*  and  not  as  property  the  Government  had  acquired 
in  any  other  way. 

These  statutes  provide  for  condemnation  after  trial  had  in  the  courts.  They  fur- 
nish no  authority  for  taking  property  of  rebels  without  due  course  of  law. 

The  Army  can  not  enforce  these  statutes.  It  certainly  can  not  take  jurisdiction 
under  confiscation  and  oust  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States.  This  property  was 
taken  possession  of  under  an  order  from  General  Thomas,  which  states  that  "it  has 
been  tor  a  long  time  contemplated  to  make  an  army  printing  office  of  the  '  Methodist 
Publishing  House.'  The  house  has  been  confiscated  by  the  United  States,"  etc. 
This  order  asserts  that  the  house  had  been  confiscated.  Such  was  not  the  fact.  Pro- 
ceedings had  only  been  instituted  to  confiscate,  and  it  was  in  the  custody  of  the 
court  when  General  Thomas  ordered  its  seizure. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  property  was  not  taken  possession  of  as  captured  property. 
General  Buell's  order  protected  it.  General  Thomas  did  not  withdraw  this  protec- 
tion. On  the  contrary,  he  assumed  that  it  had  been  confiscated. 

It  was  not  seized  with  reference  to  its  usefulness  in  any  tactical  or  strategic  sense 
for  the  Army.  It  was  seized  to  save  money  in  printing  for  the  Army  and  as  a  con- 
venience for  the  civil  department  of  the  Government.  The  law  of  military  necessity 
did  not  apply.  The  protection  given  by  General  Buell's  proclamation  and  the  cus- 
todianship of  the  United  States  court  places  this  property  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
ordinary  rules  which  apply  to  enemy's  property.  When  the  Government  gives  such 
protection  to  property  it  assumes  to  pay  for  it  if  any  urgent  necessity  requires  it  to 
apply  the  property  to  the  public  use. 

When  the  military  government  undertook  to  enforce  the  confiscation  of  property 
for  the  crime*  of  its  owner,  under  the  authority  of  the  statutory  laws  of  the  United 
States,  it  was  bound  also  to  respect  the  Constitution  of  the  United  Stiites  in  the 
administration  of  these  laws.  But  there  should  be  a  very  clear  and  very  grave  neces- 
sity to  justify  the  Army  or  military  authority  in  taking  property  from  the  lawful 
custody  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

The  court  alone  can  render  judgment  of  forfeiture  in  such  cases,  and  can  alone 
condemn  and  confiscate  it,  and  when  it  is  proceeding  to  adjudicate  in  such  a  mat- 
ter no  other  authority  can  take  the  matter  out  of  its  bauds  and  confiscate  it.  Con- 
gress could  not  do  so  much,  and  it  is  not  possible  that  a  military  government  can 
lawfully  exercise  such  authority;  and  yet  this  is  the  precise  attitude  of  this  matter. 
The  property  was  seized  by  order  of  General  Thomas  as  confiscated  property,  while 
the  United  States  was  suing  in  its  courts  for  its  condemnation.  This  cause  pro- 
ceeded, from  its  beginning  to  its  end,  so  far  as  the  United  States  court  was  concerned 
just  as  it  would  have  been  conducted  in  any  State  not  included  within  the  insurrec- 
tionary territory. 

The  Government  has  admitted  .by  its  refusal  to  prosecute  the  suit,  and  the  court 
has  decided,  that  this  property  never  was  forfeited  to  the  United  States  by  the  crime 
of  its  owner. 

The  military  authorities  never  seized  the  property  as  "captured  or  abandoned 
property." 

In  any  view  of  the  case  the  property  remained  the  property  of  the  "Book  Agents 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  corporation,"  and  was  not  changed  by 
either  its  legal  or  military  custody. 

This  property  having  been  seized  by  the  court,  and  also  by  the  Army,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  confiscation,  and  not  by  capture,  conquest,  or  other  right  of  war,  we  are 
relieved  from  inquiry  whether  the  general  commanding  the  department  could  have 
lawfully  captured  it  and  could  have  used,  converted,  or  destroyed  it  at  his  pleasure 
without  compensation  for  it. 

The  decision  of  the  court  that  the  property  is  not  confiscable  is  a  decision  that 
such  person  owns  and  has  a  right  to  enjoy  it. 

The  Government,  acting  under  its  own  civil  statutes  and  through  its  courts  in  the 
confiscation  of  property,  puts  in  issue  the  only  phase  of  the  disloyalty  of  a  citizen 
which  affects  his  right  of  property,  and  the  action  of  the  court  is  decisive  of  this 
question. 

There  was  no  law  to  justify  the  court  to  withhold  the  property  when  it  was  not 
condemned  or  confiscated.  If  it  had  rented  out  the  property  or  s'old  it,  the  right  of 
the  claimant  to  the  rental  or  proceeds  of  sale  would  be  unquestioned. 

Your  committee  do  not  believe  that  public  policy  or  public  sentiment  requires 
Congress  to  refuse  to  restore  this  charity. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  37 

This  corporation  was  chartered  by  the  legislature  of  Tennessee  "for  the  manufac- 
ture and  distribution  of  books,  tracts,  periodicals,"  «tc.,  under  control  of  the  "Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  South,"  according  to  th«  laws  and  usages  of  the  same,  as 
contained  in  its  ritual.  It  was  intended  in  the  broadest  sense  to  be  an  eleemosynary 
institution,  through  which  there  could  be  furnished  at  very  low  rates,  and  also 
gratuitously,  religious  literature  and  schoolbooks  to  the  people.  There  was  no 
stock  of  the  corporation,  and  all  its  increase  was  to  be  and  is  now  devoted  to 
increasing  the  usefulness  of  the  charity.  If  reasons  hare  heretofore  seemingly 
existed  that  would  justify  Congress  in  withholding  compensation  to  the  claimant, 
they  no  longer  exist  in  such  form  as  to  require  the  Government  to  deny  an  act  of 
justice  to  the  generation  now  needing  the  benefits  of  this  great  charity.* 

The  petitions  laid  before  this  committee  represent  that  many  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  of  all  sections,  earnestly  desire  that  Congress  will  give  just  relief  in 
this  matter.  It  is  believed  that  no  private  claim  was  ever  presented  to  Congress 
that  was  so  extensively  and  earnestly  supported  by  various  memorials  arid  recom- 
mendations. That  four  are  from  State  legislatures;  one  from  the  general  confer- 
ence of  the  Colored  Methodist  Church;  others  from  eight  of  the  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church — viz,  Bishops  Morris,  Janes,  Simpson,  Ames,  Bowman, 
Merrill,  Peck,  and  Haveu — and  many  other  ministers  of  that  church;  others  from 
the  mayor  and  council  of  Nashville  and  of  Edgefield,  Tenn. ;  another  from  the  gov- 
ernor and  most  of  the  officials,  national,  State,  and  municipal,  of  Nashville;  another 
from  Judge  Trigg,  of  the  United  States  court,  of  Nashville;  another  from  all  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  Tennessee,  with  its  entire  bar;  another  from  about 
two  hundred  merchants,  bankers,  and  business  houses  of  Nashville;  another  from 
the  chiefs  of  the  Indian  nation  west  of  Arkansas;  others  from  all  the  annual  con- 
ferences of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South;  others  from  many  of  the  lead- 
ing ministers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  chiefly  in  New  York,  Baltimore, 
Washington,  etc.;  and  others  from  nearly  a  hundred  colleges  and  high  schools  in 
many  parts  of  the  country;  and  still  others  from  about  three  thousand  individual 
petitioners  in  about  one  hundred  cities  and  towns  in  twenty-five  States.  These  last 
include  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  governors,  ex-governors,  judges,  and  Mem- 
bers of  Congress,  and  fully  five  other  prominent  men  in  civil  office,  the  remainder 
being  mostly  lawyers,  doctors,  and  clergymen  of  all  denominations,  and  other  sub- 
stantial citizens,  white  and  colored,  and  including  all  religious  beliefs,  Jews,  Catho- 
lics, and  Protestants.  The  papers  laid  before  the  committee  substantially  support 
these  statements.  These  memorials  indicate  a  sentiment  which  is  honorable  to  the 
people  and  most  gratifying  to  all  who  desire  that  our  past  differences  may  cease  to 
be  remembered  as  causes  of  present  or  future  discord,  but  may  only  be  adverted  to 
as  admonitions  to  warn  us  against  like  evils. 

The  committee  believe  that  the  law  of  the  land,  justice  to  a  large  and  helpless 
class  of  people,  a  magnanimous  spirit  on  the  part  of  the  Government  toward  the 
beneficiaries  in  a  great  charity  which  has  been  injured  through  its  action,  popular 
sentiment  North  and  South,  and  the  heartfelt  desire  of  the  people  throughout  the 
country  for  a  perfect  restoration  of  peace  and  amity  between  them,  all  concur  in 
supporting  the  recommendation  which  they  have  the  honor  to  submit  that  Congress 
will  pass  this  bill. 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  January  1, 1896. 


DEAR  BROTHER:  The  claim  of  the  Publishing  House  is  stated  in  brief  extracts 
from  the  reports  of  the  several  committees  of  Congress  in  the  pamphlet  hereto 
attached.  The  claim  tiled  aggregated  $457,000.  The  amount  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee was  $288,600,  which  the  Publishing  House  agreed  to  accept,  in  order  to  effect 
a  settlement.  The  original  report  was  made  by  the  Senate  Committee  of  the  Forty- 
fifth  Congress,  in  1874,  failure  to  pass  the  bil  since  that  time  being  due  largely  to 
an  absence  of  united  effort  to  secure  its  passage,  although  recommended  for  passage 
by  committees  during  two  subsequent  sessions  of  Congress. 

We  are  now  promised  support  which  we  have  not  hitherto  had;  but  in  order  to 
enlist  Members  of  Congress  and  Senators  it  will  be  necessary  for  friends  of  the 
church  to  do  some  active  work.  What  we  need  is : 

First.  Signatures  to  a  petition  (copy  of  which  find  herewith)  from  ministers  of 
all  denominations  located  in  your  city,  town,  or  vicinity.  We  had  but  little  difficulty 
in  securing  these  many  years  ago  from  all  classes,  including  Israelites  and  Catholics, 
as  well  as  those  serving  colored  congregations. '  These  petitions  should  also  be  signed 

*  The  Organic  Law  of  the  Church,  Chapter  II,  paragraph  42,  provides :  "  That  the 
produce  of  the  Publishing  House  shall  not  be  appropriated  to  any  purpose  other  than 
for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out 
preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 


38  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH, 

by  county  and  city  officials,  and  editors  of  newspapers,  and  members  and  ex-mem- 
bers of  legislatures,  especially  in  so  far  as  said  officials,  legislators,  and  editors  are 
politically  in  accord  with  the  Member  of  Congress  to  be  reached.  These  petitions  thu» 
secured  should  be  transmitted  to  tho  Member  of  Congress  representing  your  district, 
accompanied  with  a  letter  from  some  personal  and  political  friend  of  the  Member, 
asking  said  Member  to  present  the  petition  to  the  Committee  on  \\  ar  Claims  and  to 
lend  his  aid  in  favor  of  the  bill.  In  case  a  portion  of  the  ministers  of  the  various 
churches  in  your  locality  should  decline  to  sign  the  petition,  try  to  make  up  the 
deficiency  by  having  business  men  and  citizens  generally  affix  their  signatures. 

Second.  Leading  citizens,  especially  those  who  take  an  active  part  in  politics  and 
are  politically  in  accord  with  the  Member  of  Congress  from  your  district  or  Senators 
from  your  State,  and  friendly  to  such  Member  or  Senators,  should  be  asked  to  write 
letters  to  such  Member  of  Congress  or  Senators,  requesting  their  active  aid  in  the 
passage  of  this  measure.  For  example,  where  a  brother  is  not  acquainted  with  either 
the  Member  of  Congress  or  Senator,  but  knows  a  friend  or  friends  who  are  acquainted 
with  such  Member  or  Senators,  and  who  were  active  in  promoting  the  nomination 
and  election  of  such  Senators  or  Member  of  Congress,  let  him  take  steps  to  have 
such  friend  or  friends  write  letters  to  such  Senators  or  Members.  Such  letters  should 
be  forwarded  to  the  parties,  addressed  at  Washington,  D.  C. 

Third.  If,  in  your  vicinity,  you  have  either  in  the  ministry  or  membership  of  our 
church  ex-Federal  soldiers,  letters  from  one  or  more  of  such  brethren,  reciting  this 
fact  and  urging  the  payment  of  the  claim,  should  be  written  to  the  Member  of  Con- 
gress representing  your  district  and  Senators  from  your  State ;  and  if,  in  the  member- 
ship of  our  church  in  your  vicinity,  a  number  of  ex-Federal  soldiers  and  their  families 
are  found,  let  the  letters  written  by  the  brethren  also  state  this  fact  (giving  the  num- 
ber if  large  enough  to  make  an  impression).  Such  letters  should  be  sent  to  the 
Member  of  Congress  representing  your  district,  as  well  as  Senators  from  your  State, 
with  a  request  to  have  the  fact  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Committee  on  War 
Claims. 

Fourth.  If,  in  your  vicinity,  you  have  either  in  the  ministry  or  membership  of  our 
church  brethren  who  belong  to  and  affiliate  with  the  Republican  party,  letters  from 
one  or  more  of  such  brethren,  reciting  this  fact  and  urging  the  payment  of  the 
claim,  should  be  written  to  the  Member  of  Congress  representing  your  district  and 
Senators  from  your  State;  and  if,  in  the  membership  of  our  church  in  your  vicinity, 
a  number  of  Republicans  and  their  families  are  found,  let  the  letters  written  by  the 
brethren  also  state  this  fact  (giving  the  number  if  large  enough  to  make  an  impres- 
sion). Such  letters  should  be  sent  to  the  Member  of  Congress  representing  your 
district,  as  well  as  Senators  from  your  State,  with  a  request  to  have  the  tact  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  Committee  on  War  Claims.  If  it  should  appear  that  the 
Member  of  Congress  from  your  district  and  Senators  from  your  State  are  not  mem- 
bers of  the  Republican  party,  such  letters  should  be  addressed  to  the  Hon.  Henry 
M.  Teller,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Claims  of  the  United  States  Senate,  and 
the  Hon.  Thaddeus  M.  Mahou,  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  War  Claims, 
Washington,  D.  C. 

Fifth.  If,  in  your  vicinity,  you  have  either  in  the  ministry  or  membership  of  our 
church,  or  the  ministry  or  membership  of  any  other  church,  or  prominent  citizens 
who  belong  to  no  church,  who  are  ex-Federal  soldiers  or  Republicans  in  politics,  or 
both,  who  came  from  the  North,  East,  or  West,  and  who  may  have  friends  in  that 
section  that  can  be  induced  to  aid  us,  letters  from  such  ex-Federal  soldiers,  Repub- 
licans, or  citizens  to  Members  of  Congress,  stating  in  what  States  in  the  North,  East, 
or  West  they  lived,  and  asking  the  Members  of  Congress  or  Senators  representing 
such  Northern,  Eastern,  or  Western  States  to  aid  in  the  passage  of  the  bill  should 
likewise  be  obtained.  Such  letters  should  be  sent  direct  to  the  parties,  addressed 
at  Washington,  D.  C. 

Sixth.  If,  in  your  vicinity,  yon  have  either  in  the  ministry  or  membership  of  our 
church,  or  the  ministry  or  membership  of  any  other  church,  or  prominent  citizens 
who  belong  to  no  church,  who  are  Populists  in  politics,  it  is  quite  desirable  to  have 
letters  from  such  gentlemen  addressed  to  Members  of  Congress  or  Senators  represent- 
ing the  Populist  Party.  If  your  State  has  such  representation  either  in  Congress  or 
the  United  States  Senate,  such  letters  should  be  addressed  to  such  Congressmen  or 
Senators.  If  they  have  no  such  representation,  such  letters  should  be  addressed  to 
the  Hon.  William  V.  Allen,  United  States  Senator,  Washington,  D.  C.,  who  is  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims.  Let  the  letters  thus  written  state  that  the 
writers  belong  to  Mr.  Allen's  political  party,  which  party  is  largely  represented  in 
the  South  and  has  a  large  membership  in  our  church. 

For  your  convenient  information,  as  well  as  those  who  may  desire  to  transmit 
petitions  and  write  letters  as  indicated,  we  send  herewith  a  pamphlet  containing  a 
list  of  Senators  and  Members  of  the  present  Congress,  including  list  of  the  Com- 
mittees on  War  Claims  in  the  Senate  as  well  as  the  House. 

The  foregoing  specific  methods  and  forms  are  suggested  by  a  brother  who  is  ren- 
dering valuable  aid  in  connection  with  this  claim,  and  who,  from  his  large  experience, 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  39 

recognizes  the  value  of  systematic  and  well-directed  efforts.  It  is  for  these  reasons 
that  we  are  so  specific,  and  we  hope  that  the  brethren  will  adopt  our  suggestion, 
both  as  to  methods  and  forms. 

We  recognize  that  this  request  will  entail  considerable  work  on  the  ministry,  and 
therefore  suggest  that  the  aid  of  laymen  who  are  active  and  have  influence  be 
invoked  in  the  endeavor  to  secure  letters  to  Senators  and  Members  of  Congress,  as 
well  as  signatures  to  the  petition.  Much  good  can  be  accomplished  by  the  work  of 
such  brethren. 

There  is  much,  you  may  be  assured,  depends  upon  the  work  of  each  and  all  to  whom 
this  circular  letter  is  addressed,  and  if  we  fail  to  accomplish  results  it  will  be  due, 
in  a  great  measure,  to  the  failure  of  the  brethren  of  the  church  to  help  us  in  this 
hour  of  need. 

The  poor  of  the  church  need  money;  hard  times  and  general  depression  in  busi- 
ness of  all  kinds  during  the  past  four  years  has  very  much  curtailed  contributions. 
"Traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers,  their  wives, 
widows,  and  children"  are  badly  in  need  of  help,  which  the  Publishing  House,  with 
improved  facilities,  can  give  if  this  eminently  just  claim  is  allowed.  We  urge  you, 
therefore,  to  speedy  and  considerate  action  in  the  line  indicated  in  the  foregoing. 

Please  acknowledge  receipt  as  per  postal  card  hereto  attached,  and  later  on  advise 
us,  as  per  blank  also  hereto  attached,  what  you  have  succeeded  in  doing. 

Congress  is  now  in  session ;  the  bills  are  before  committees  of  both  Houses.  We 
earnestly  appeal  to  you,  therefore,  to  go  actively  to  work  at  once.  There  is  no  time 
to  be  lost. 

In  the  belief  that  with  the  active  and  prompt  assistance  asked  for  success  will 
crown  our  efforts,  we  are, 

Sincerely,  yours,  BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  prepared  that  circular  and  statement  as 
the  employed  agent  of  the  book  committee? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  did. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Were  you  under  contract  with  the  committee 
at  the  time? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  was  your  contract? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  contract  was  to  prosecute  this  claim  before 
Congress  and  they  in  the  prosecution  of  the  claim  were  to  invoke  the 
aid  of  the  ministers,  the  laymen,  and  the  friends  of  the  church.  In 
pursuance  of  that  contract,  under  which  I  was  to  receive  35  per  cent  as 
my  fee,  this  circular  was  sent  out  and  the  response  was  favorable  in 
practically  all  cases. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  signed  that  circular? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Barbee  and  Smith.  I  prepared  it  just  as  an  attorney 
would  prepare  a  paper  or  brief  or  bill,  and  would  ask  his  client  to  say 
whether  or  not  the  statement  was  true,  and  whether  or  not  it  repre- 
sented everything  correctly.  In  addition  I  prepared  a  letter  to  the 
bishops  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South,  which  1  will  read,  and  which  met 
the  approval  of  the  book  agents.  It  was  signed  by  the  book  agents 
and  was  acted  on  by  the  bishops. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  I  suggest  that  as  that  has  only  a  collateral 
bearing  on  the  matter,  we  do  not  stop  to  have  it  read  now.  You  may 
put  it  into  the  record. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  would  rather  read  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  We  are  not  questioning  the  value  of  Mr.  Stahlman's 
services.  They  might  be  worth  $100,000  or  $150,000.  We  are  not 
questioning  that.  That  is  not  one  of  the  disputed  points. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  thought  it  was. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  thought  that  the  sole  question  was  in  reference  to 
misrepresentation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  what  I  announced — the  misrepresentations 
which  had  been  made  by  anybody  with  reference  to  securing  the  pas- 
sage of  the  bill — not  as  to  the  merits  of  the  bill  or  as  to  the  value  of 
the  services  rendered. 


40  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  PASCO.  We  are  not  proposing  to  take  a  featherweight  from 
the  value  of  the  services. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  want  to  put  in  the  letter  you  may  do  so,  but  it 
would  save  time  not  to  read  it. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  In  some  of  the  debates  in  the  Senate  on 
the  resolution,  Mr.  Stahlman's  name  was  mentioned  as  one  who  had 
looted  from  the  church  or  the  Government  or  from  the  superannuated 
preachers  and  had  deprived  them  of  their  income.  That  was  made  one 
of  the  matters  pertinent  to  the  introduction  of  the  resolution. 

Senator  PASCO.  If  you  read  the  resolution  you  will  see  that  it  does 
not  cover  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  question  whether  Mr.  Stahlman  took  money 
from  the  church  fund  is  a  question  which  we  do  not  propose  to  inquire 
into.  We  have  no  remedy  if  he  did.  We  only  want  to  know  how  we 
were  dealt  with  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Pardon  me  one  second  for  a  suggestion.  In  the 
debate  on  the  passage  of  the  resolution  for  this  investigation  it  was 
intimated,  and  in  fact  was  so  stated,  that  I  was  a  very  rich  man;  that 
I  had  made  certain  representations  with  reference  to  this  matter;  had 
collected  an  enormous  fee  to  which  I  was  not  entitled,  and  that  I  had 
placed  myself  in  the  attitude  of  a  man  who  ought  to  be  tabooed,  the 
declaration  of  one  Senator  being  that  I  was  a  thief. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  recollect  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  is  in  the  Kecord.  Another  Senator  said  that  the 
church  ought  to  return  every  dollar  of  the  money.  Now,  my  purpose 
is  to  show  to  this  committee  (and  I  think  it  is  right  and  fair  that  I 
should  be  allowed  to  do  so)  what  I  did  and  how  I  did  it,  and  I  am  pre- 
pared to  tell  everything  in  connection  with  it  from  its  inception  to 
its  end. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  wish  to  deprive  you  of  any  right  to  pre- 
sent your  case  before  the  committee,  but  we  are  not  going  to  inquire 
into  that,  unless  we  change  our  views.  It  is  nothing  to  us  whether 
you  earned  your  money  or  whether  you  did  not. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  inference,  Mr.  Chairman,  is — I  want  to  be  respect- 
ful, because  I  am  dealing  with  the  United  States  Senate,  regarded  as 
the  greatest  deliberative  body  in  the  world — the  inference  is,  and  it 
has  been  charged,  that  there  was  an  outrage  perpetrated  on  the  church 
through  this  contract. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  we  are  inquiring  about  is  the  outrage  perpe- 
trated on  the  Senate  by  the  concealment  of  facts  which  if  known  might 
have  changed  the  Senate's  action. 

Senator  PASCO.  If  an  outrage  were  perpetrated  by  the  contract  it 
was  upon  the  church,  and  that  is  a  matter  which  the  church  itself  must 
investigate.  The  only  matter  for  the  committee  to  investigate  is  whether 
an  outrage  was  perpetrated  on  the  Senate  by  the  willful  misrepresenta- 
tion of  the  parties  engaged  in  this  matter.  If  there  was  an  outrage  per- 
petrated upon  the  church  the  church  is  capable  of  following  that  up 
and  acting  upon  it,  but  the  Senate  has  not  intrusted  it  with  that 
investigation. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  I  do  not  wish  to  raise  any  question  after  a 
decision  has  been  made,  but  Mr.  Stahlman  is  very  perspicuous  in  his 
statements  and  will  be  brief,  but  I  would  like  that  he  be  allowed  to 
state  the  facts  in  his  own  vindication. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  What  was  the  purpose  of  the  $5,000  amend- 
ment to  the  bill  in  regard  to  agent's  fees,  if  it  was  not  to  be  a  measure 
of  value? 

Senator  PASCO.  That  amendment  did  not  prevail. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  41 

Senator  CLAY.  Senator  Lodge's  amendment  was  withdrawn  on  the 
statement  being  made  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  that  no  fees  at  all  were 
to  be  paid.  That  statement  having  been  made,  the  amendment  was 
withdrawn  because  the  friends  of  the  measure  thought  that  if  adopted 
it  would  throw  the  bill  into  a  conference,  and  possibly  give  trouble  and 
endanger  its  final  passage. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Because  of  that  statement  the  amendment  was 
laid  upon  the  table  almost  unanimously. 

Senator  CLAY.  Yes;  and  I  think  that  you  made  the  motion. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  I  did. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  for  that  statement  the  amendment  would  have 
been  adopted. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  The  impression  that  I  got  was  that  Senator  Lodge 
was  induced  to  withdraw  because  there  would  have  been  difficulty  in 
the  bill  again  passing  the  House. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  has  been  alleged  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  that 
Mr.  Stahlman  assured  Senators  that  he  was  not  to  receive  a  dollar  for 
all  these  services. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  is  a  very  serious  matter  for  a  Senator  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  to  call  a  man  a  thief,  or  to  say  that  he  should  be  tabooed 
and  that  he  has  not  a  shred  of  character  left.  That  is  a  very  serious 
matter.  Now,  I  desire  the  privilege  of  stating  every  material  fact  con- 
nected with  the  progress  of  this  claim. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  give  you  that  liberty,  but  we  can  not  sit 
here  for  days. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  will  not  take  me  days. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  you  are  willing  to  make  your  statement  in  a  gen- 
eral way 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  will  not  take  long. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Well,  go  ahead. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  As  I  stated,  in  addition  to  the  circular  letter  accom- 
panied by  the  statement  of  facts  culled  from  the  Senate  report  of  1878, 
I  drafted  a  letter  to  the  various  bishops  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South. 
That  letter  was  submitted  to  the  book  agents,  and  it  was  sent  by  them 
to  the  several  bishops.  I  will  not  detain  the  committee  by  reading  the 
letter,  but  I  will  file  it. 

The  letter  is  as  follows: 

DECEMBER  31,  1895. 
Bishop  C.  B.  GALLOWAY, 

Jackson,  Miss. 

Dear  BISHOP:  The  claim  of  the  publishing  house  is  rfcated  in  hrief  extracts  from 
the  reports  of  the  several  committees  of  Congress  in  the  pamphlet  hereto  attached. 
The  claim  filed  aggregated  $457,000.  The  amount  reported  by  the  committee  was 
$288,000,  which  the  publishing  house  agreed  to  accept  in  order  to  effect  a  settlement. 
The  original  report  was  made  by  the  Senate  committee  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress 
in  1874,  failure  to  pass  the  bill  since  that  time  being  due  largely  to  an  absence  of 
unit«d  effort  to  secure  its  passage,  although  recommended  fdr  passage  by  committees 
during  two  subsequent  sessions  of  Congress. 

We  are  now  promised  support  which  we  have  not  hitherto  had,  but  in  order  to 
enlist  Senators  and  Members  of  Congress  it  will  be  necessary  for  friends  of  the  church 
to  do  some  active  work. 

When  the  claim  was  presented  to  Congress  some  twenty  years  ago  it  was  sup- 
ported, SM  the  report  shows,  by  Bishops  Morris,  Janes,  Simpson,  Ames,  Bowman, 
Merrill,  Peck,  and  Haven,  and  others  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  they  having  written  let- 
ters or  signed  petitions  in  favor  of  the  payment  of  our  claim.  It  is,  of  course,  very 
desirable  that  these  indorsements  should  be  renewed;  not  only  on  the  part  of  those 
who  aided  ns  before  and  are  still  living,  but  those  who  fill  the  vacancies  created  by 
death,  as  well  as  those  who  have  been  chosen  bishops  by  reason  of  the  enlargement 
of  the  College  of  Bishops.  We  have,  therefore,  upon  mature  reflection,  concluded  that 
yon  ar«  the  proper  representative  of  our  church  to  make  an  appeal  to  the  bishops  of 


42  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

the  North  for  assistance.  We  are  persuaded  that  letters  will  be  more  effective  than 
a  petition  and  can  be  obtained  with  less  delay.  Will  you  not,  therefore,  at  your 
earliest  convenience,  write  these  friends  asking  them  each  to  write  to  one  or  more 
Members  of  Congress  and  Senators,  with  whom  they  are  acquainted,  urging  the 
passage  of  the  bill  which  has  been  introduced  and  is  now  pending  before  the  War 
C'laims  committee  of  the  Senate  and  House.  The  bill  as  introduced  is  called  "A  bill 
for  the  relief  of  the  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Chnrch  South." 

In  addition  to  letters  addressed  to  Senators  and  Members  with  whom  the  bishops 
may  be  acquainted,  it  would  aid  us  very  much  if  they  were  each  to  write  letters 
to  the  Hon.  Thaddeus  M.  Mahon,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  War  Claims  of  the 
House,  and  the  Hon.  Henry  M.  Teller,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Claims  of  the 
Senate/ 

For  convenient  reference  we  send  you  a  number  of  copies  of  extracts  from  the 
reports  of  the  several  committees  of  the  Senate  and  the  House,  and  also  a  number  of 
the  lists  of  members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  the  present  Congress,  including  a 
list  of  committees  on  War  Claims  in  the  Senate  and  House,  of  which  you  may  send 
to  each  bishop  copies.  The  first  for  the  purpose  of  having  them  understand  the 
merits  and  status  of  our  claim  and  the  second  upon  the  assumption  that  the  several 
bishops  may  personally  know  a  number  of  Senators  and  Members  of  Congress  and 
would  be  glad  to  write  such  Senators  and  Members  on  our  behalf. 

We  inclose  a  list  of  bishops  and  post-office  addresses  for  your  convenient  infor- 
mation. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing,  we  shall  be  glad  if  you  will  write  to  such  prominent 
members  or  ministers  of  the  North,  East,  and  West,  whether  connected  with  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  or  other  denominations,  as  you  believe  may  be  willing 
to  render  assistance,  inclosing  also  to  each  of  them  a  copy  of  committees'  reports 
and  a  list  of  Senators  and  Members,  asking  them  to  write  to  the  chairman  of  Claims 
Committees  and  auch  friends  in  the  Senate  and  House  as  they  may  feel  disposed  to 
approach. 

We  deem  it  desirable  for  you  to  ask  the  bishops  and  other  friends  to  advise  yon 
what  Senators  and  Kepresentatives  they  have  written  to,  and  advise  us,  in  order  that 
our  friends  in  Washington  may  be  able  to  locate  these  letters  and  thus  obtain  the 
benefits  which  such  letters  may  give. 

The  foregoing  methods  are  suggested  by  a  brother  who  is  rendering  valuable  aid 
in  connection  with  this  claim,  and  who  from  his  large  experience  recognizes  the 
value  of  systematic  and  well-directed  efforts.  It  is  for  these  reasons  that  we  make 
such  specific  suggestions,  which  we  trust  will  entirely  meet  with  your  views. 

We  recognize  that  a  compliance  with  the  foregoing  request  will  entail  much  labor 
and  expense  upon  you,  and  yet  it  is  deemed  very  essential  by  our  friends.  We  are 
therefore  prepared  to  advise  that  you  employ  a  stenographer  and  typewriter  and 
send  to  us  a  bill  for  his  services,  including  postage  and  stationery. 

Yon  may  be  assured  that  we  are  not  taxing  yon  alone,  but  we  are  asking  other 
friends  of  the  church  throughout  the  entire  connection  to  render  like  aid  in  their 
,  respective  sphere. 

Congress  is  now  in  session;  the  bills,  as  stated,  are  pending  before  committees  of 
the  House  and  Senate.  There  is  no  time  to  be  lost.  May  we  not,  therefore,  beg  that 
you  give  us  your  prompt  and  active  assistance  ? 

Sincerely,  yours,  . 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  (continuing).  This  letter  was  accompanied  by  a  state- 
ment of  facts  to  enable  the  bishops  (some  of  whom  knew  little  about 
the  matter)  to  understand  thoroughly  and  to  invoke  the  help  of  their 
friends  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  whether  they  resided  North,  South, 
East,  or  West.  On  or  about  the  same  time  the  Book  Concern  of  the 
African  Methodist  Church  at  Nashville,  presided  over  by  Dr.  Smith, 
had  been  destroyed  by  fire.  I  knew  that  it  could  be  materially  aided 
by  the  Book  Concern  of  the  M.  B.  Church  South  furnishing  it  with 
literature,  books,  periodicals,  stationery,  and  everything  of  that  sort. 
I  called  upon  Dr.  Smith.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  1  went  about  this 
matter  just  exactly  as  a  man  would  in  a  lawsuit,  doing  everything  in 
favor  of  his  client  and  presenting  facts  in  favor  of  his  client.  I  had 
a  conference  with  Dr.  Smith.  I  said:  "You  know  that  these  people 
here  were  injured  by  the  war.  You  know  something  of  the  facts  of 
the  case.  Look  over  this  pamphlet."  He  looked  it  over  and  said, 
"That  is  right,"  and  he  said  he  would  write  to  some  of  the  bishops  of 
his  church.  I  framed  the  letter  for  him,  just  as  an  attorney,  represent- 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  43 

ing  a  client  in  the  case.    Here  is  a  copy  of  the  original  letter  sent  by 
Mr.  Smith  to  his  bishops: 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  January  1, 1896. 

DEAR  BISHOP:  Our  friends  of  the  publishing  house  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South 
have  bad  a  claim  pending  in  Congress  for  twenty  years  for  use  and  damage  to  the 
publishing  house  during  the  war.  It  is,  as  shown  by  the  several  reports,  an 
eminently  just  claim,  indorsed,  as  will  be  seen,  by  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  even  when  sectionalism  was  running  high. 

These  brethren  have  been  uniformly  kind  to  us  since  we  located  in  Nashville, 
having  aided  us  in  substantial  ways.  They  are,  therefore,  entitled  to  our  help.  I 
have  been  asked  to  kindly  help  them  by  requesting  you  and  other  bishops  of  our 
cburch  to  write  letters  to  the  Hon.  Henry  M.  Teller,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on 
Claims  of  the  Senate,  and  to  the  Hon.  Thaddeus  M.  Mahon,  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  War  Claims  of  the  House,  recommending  the  passage  of  the  bill  now 
pending  for  the  payment  of  this  claim. 

I  earnestly  recommend  that  this  be  done,  and  trust  it  will  be  your  pleasure  to  write 
the  letters  and  forward  them  to  me  by  return  mail  so  that  I  may  hand  them  to  our 
friends,  to  be  forwarded  by  them  to  Washington,  with  other  letters  and  petitions. 
Sincerely,  yours, 

C.  S.  SMITH. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  (continuing).  These  gentlemen  responded.  I  think 
the  chairman  of  this  committee  received  a  n timber  of  letters  from  the 
bishops  of  the  African  Church.  I  do  not  think  that  their  responses 
came  because  an  attorney  brought  them  out,  but  because  they  were 
satisfied  the  facts  of  the  case  justified  the  payment  of  this  claim.  In 
addition  to  that,  when  the  African  conference  met  in  Baltimore  a  few 
months  after  that,  they  unanimously  adopted  a  resolution  recommend- 
ing the  payment  of  this  claim.  In  addition  to  that,  Dr.  Smith,  being 
in  touch  with  all  these  bishops,  told  me  that  they  were  willing  at  any 
time  to  do  anything  else  required  of  them  in  the  same  line.  He,  said, 
"  We  have  realized  that  you  helped  us  in  our  distress,  and  we  are  willing 
at  any  time  to  go  to  Washington  in  a  body  to  present  the  case  and  to 
help  you."  They  came  to  Washington. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  they  come  at  their  own  expense? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  am  coming  right  to  that.  I  will  make  no  conceal- 
ment. Dr.  Smith  came  to  me  and  said:  "These  bishops  are  ready  to 
go  to  Washington."  That  was  after  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims 
had  reported  the  bill  for  $150,000.  I  think  it  was  in  1896.  That  bill 
had  been  rejected  by  the  book  committee.  Then  a  bill  was  introduced 
to  submit  the  matter  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  That  bill  passed  the 
Senate  without  objection.  It  hungup  in  the  House.  It  was  believed 
that  something  could  be  done  to  bring  it  up  in  the  House.  We  were 
quite  as  ready  to  have  the  claim  go  to  the  Court  of  Claims  as  we  were 
to  have  a  direct  appropriation.  And,  to  be  perfectly  frank,  I  believe 
that  if  it  had  gone  to  the  Court  of  Claims  we  would  have  got  $400,000. 
But  what  we  wanted  was  some  action.  These  gentlemen  came  on  to 
Washington  and  called  upon  the  Speaker.  I  happened  to  be  in  Wash- 
ington and  met  them  here.  I  said  to  Dr.  Smith: 

"I  do  not  want  these  men  to  come  to  Washington  city  at  their  own  expense.  I 
will  see  that  their  expenses  are  paid.  They  have  come  here  from  different  parts  of 
the  country — from  Philadelphia,  Jersey  City,  Chicago,  Atlanta,  Athens,  Ohio,  and 
elsewhere.  They  have  come  here  to  undertake  to  help  us,  and  I  will  pay  their 
expenses." 

I  do  not  know  that  Barbee  and  Smith  knew  anything  about  that. 
Perhaps  they  did,  perhaps  they  did  not.  But  the  bill  failed  of  passage 
in  that  session  of  Congress,  although  it  had  passed  the  Senate.  The 
Fifty- fifth  Congress  came,  and  I  said: 

WTe  simply  can  not  rest  upon  what  we  have  done  in  the  Fifty-fourth 
Congress,  because  there  are  any  number  of  Kepresentatives  and  Sena- 


44  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

tors  in  the  Fifty-fifth  Congress  who  were  not  in  the    Fifty-fourth 
Congress  and  who  do  not  know  anything  about  this  claim. 

I  submitted  to  Barbee  and-  Smith  a  circular  with  another  statement 
of  facts.  The  statement  of  facts  is  as  follows: 

STATEMENT  OF  FACTS  RELATING  TO  S.  BILL  2962  TO  CONFER  JURISDICTION  ON 
COURT  OF  CLAIMS  IN  THE  CASE  OF  THE  BOOK  AGENTS  OF  THE  M.  E.  CHURCH 
SOUTH. 

The  facts  with  respect  to  this  claim  are  taken  mainly  from  House  Report  352,  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Lester  from  Committee  on  War  Claims  to  54th  Congress,  and,  briefly 
stated,  are  substantially  as  follows : 

"The  Book  Agents  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South"  is  a  corporation  chartered  by  the 
legislature  of  Tennessee  in  1854.  The  object  of  this  institution  is  "to  advance  the 
cause  of  Christianity  by  disseminating  religious  knowledge  and  useful  literary  and 
scientific  information  in  the  form  of  books,  tracts,  and  periodicals." 

The  net  proceeds  of  the  publishing  house,  established  at  Nashville  by  and  under 
the  control  of  this  corporation,  are,  as  provided  under  the  organic  law  of  the  church, 
set  apart  "for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and 
worn-out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

Under  this  organization,  and  with  this  object  in  view,  large  sums  of  money  were 
accumulated  through  contributions  and  other  sources  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
an  extensive  publishing  house  plant  in  Nashville,  Tenn.,  and  such  a  plant  was 
established  and  was  in  full  and  successful  operation  when  the  war  between  the 
States  broke  out  in  1861,  and  up  to  the  time  the  Federal  Army,  under  General  Buell, 
reached  Nashville  in  February,  1862. 

When,  after  the  fall  of  Fort  Donelson,  the  army  of  General  Buell  reached*  the 
vicinity  of  Nashville,  and  was  camped  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  from  the  city, 
it  appears  that  the  mayor  of  Nashville,  with  city  officials  and  citizens  (including 
among  the  latter  the  present  chairman  of  the  book  committee  of  this  publishing 
house),  met  General  Buell  and  informed  him  of  the  city's  condition,  and  invited  him 
to  occupy  and  protect  the  city,  and  that  General  Buell  "  expressed  gratification  at 
the  proceeding,"  and  assured  the  deputation  "that  protection  to  both  persons  and 
property  of  all  peaceable  citizens  would  be  fully  extended  by  the  Army  of  the 
United  States,"  and  requested  the  mayor  to  so  inform  the  people  by  proclamation. 
Whereupon  the  mayor,  on  the  26th  of  February,  1862,  issued  his  proclamation, 
stating,  among  other  things,  that  "the  committee  representing  the  city  authorities 
and  the  people  have  discharged  their  duty  by  calling  on  General  Buell  in  Edge- 
field  on  yesterday.  The  interview  was  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  committee,  and 
there  is  every  assurance  of  safety  and  protection  to  the  people  both  in  their  persons 
and  their  property.  I  therefore  request  that  business  be  resumed  and  all  our  citi- 
zens of  every  trade  and  profession  pursue  their  regular  vocation." 

On  the  same  day  (February  26th)  General  Buell  issued  a  proclamation,  in  which, 
among  other  things,  he  said : 

"We  are  in  arms  not  for  the  purpose  of  invading  the  rights  of  our  fellow-country- 
men anywhere,  but  to  maintain  the  Union  and  protect  the  Constitution.  .  .  . 
Peaceable  citizens  are  not  to  be  molested  in  their  personal  property;  all  wrongs  to 
either  are  to  be  promptly  corrected,  and  the  offenders  brought  to  punishment,1''  etc. 
"  If  the  necessities  of  the  public  service  require  the  use  of  private  property  for  public 
purposes,  compensation  is  to  be  allowed,"  etc. 

General  Butler,  in  his  proclamation  upon  entering  New  Orleans,  stated  that  "  all 
rights  of  property  of  whatever  kind  will  be  inviolate,  subject  only  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States."  The  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  "  The  Venice,"  decided  that  this 
clause  "only  reiterates  the  rules  established  by  the  legislative  and  executive  action 
of  the  national  Government  in  respect  to  the  portions  of  the  States  in  insurrection, 
and  occupied  and  controlled  by  the  troops  of  the  Union;"  and  that  "  wherever  the 
national  troops  have  established  order  under  national  rule  the  right  of  person  and 
property  have  been  in  general  respected  and  enforced." 

There  was  no  formal  surrender  at  New  Orleans  or  Nashville,  but  in  Nashville  there 
was  formal  submission,  while  in  New  Orleans  the  mayor  refused  to  give  the  pledge 
of  submission. 

The  orders  or  proclamation  of  General  Buell  were  much  broader  and  more  definite 
than  General  Butler's;  they  reached  to  the  conduct  of  officers  and  men,  enjoining 
them  against  all  interference  with  property,  etc.,  and  expressly  provided  for  com- 
pensation for  property  taken  for  public  use. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  what  the  proclamation  and  order  of  General  Bnell 
were  intended  and  should  have  the  effect  of  giving  a  "  full  measure  of  protection  to 
persons  and  property  consistent  with  a  necessary  subjection  to  military  government/' 
and  that  from  and  after  February  26, 1862,  citizens  of  Nashville  who  remained  peace- 
able and  their  property  could  not  be  regarded  as  enemies  or  their  property  as  enemy's 
property. 


METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  45 

The  people  of  Nashville,  after  that  period  and  until  the  close  of  hostilities,  engaged 
freely  in  their  business  pursuits;  the  courts  were  open;  the  civil  administration  of 
the  law  prevailed ;  there  was  no  disturbance  of  the  relations  which  should  exist 
between  the  military  and  civil  authorities,  and  it  is  owing  to  this  condition  of 
affairs,  satisfactorily  established  by  history  in  connection  with  this  property  and 
the  use  of  it  by  the  Army,  that  furnishes  abundant  foundation  for  this  claim. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  but  what  the  property  was  protected  by  the  proclamation  of 
General  Buell.  This  fact  derives  additional  force  from  the  proclamation  of  the 
President,  dated  August  16,  1861,  in  which  he  declares  certain  States  and  parts  of 
States  in  rebellion  and  exempts  States  and  parts  of  States  and  such  territory  as 
"may  be  from  time  to  time  occupied  and  controlled  by  forces  of  the  United  States 
engaged  in  the  dispersion  of  said  insurgents."  And  in  this  connection  it  may  be 
stated  that  during  the  entire  time  from  February  26, 1862,  to  the  close  of  the  war  the 
city  of  Nashville  was  in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States. 

On  the  24th  of  May,  1862,  a  libel  of  information  was  filed  by  the  United  States 
district  attorney  in  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  to  sequester,  condemn,  and 
sell,  and  to  confiscate  the  proceeds  of  the  property,  real  and  personal,  of  the  corpo- 
ration known  as  "  The  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South."  On 
the  3d  of  June,  1862,  the  corporation  interposed  its  claim  to  the  property,  gave 
security  for  costs,  and  asked  to  be  allowed  to  intervene  for  its  rights  of  property  and 
possession.  The  bond  to  replevy  the  property  was  filed  on  the  4th  of  June,  1862. 
Motions  were  made  and  argued,  pleas  and  demurrers  were  filed  in  the  cause.  The 
case  was  continued  several  times  upon  application  of  the  United  States  district 
attorney.  Finally,  after  numerous  continuances  by  the  Government,  the  cause  was 
dismissed  at  the  November  term,  1865,  by  direction  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States. 

"The  proceedings  in  the  case  for  confiscation  were  conducted  with  as  much 
regularity  and  as  little  interruption  as  if  they  had  been  instituted  in  a  court  of 
New  York.  Judge  Catron,  one  of  the  Supreme  Court  judges  of  the  United  States, 
held  the  court  and  presided  with  as  little  obstruction  or  threat  from  the  enemy  as 
he  did  in  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  and  the  national  authority  was 
enforced  there  through  the  courts,  and  they  administered  the  laws,  local  and 
national,  so  far  as  applicable  to  controversies  between  citizens,  as  completely  and 
effectually  within  the  territory  protected  by  the  Federal  armies  as  could  have  been 
done  in  any  loyal  State.  This  condition  of  the  country  gave  the  people  at  Nash- 
ville the  same  protection  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  that  is  so  distinctly 
provided  for  in  the  order  of  General  Buell,  viz:  'If  the  necessities  of  the  public 
service  should  require  the  use  of  private  property  for  public  purposes,  compensation 
is  to  be  allowed.' 

"On  the  24th  day  of  May  there  was  nothing  in  Nashville  to  prevent  the  United 
States,  through  its  courts,  from  endeavoring  to  assert  its  right  to  confiscate  this 
property,  and  when  the  property  was  seized  and  taken  possession  under  such  pro- 
ceedings, and  while  it  continued  in  the  custody  of  the  court,  it  was  not  liable  to 
seizure  or  capture  by  the  Army. 

"  But  the  Government  never  claimed  this  property  as  captured.  In  both  instances 
when  the  Government  seized  the  property,  first  under  confiscation  proceedings  and 
then  under  order  of  General  Thomas,  it  was  seized  for  confiscation  under  the  penal 
statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  not  as  property  the  Government  had  acquired  in 
any  other  way. 

"  These  statutes  provide  for  condemnation  after  trial  had  in  the  courts.  They 
furnish  no  authority  for  taking  property,  even  of  rebels,  without  due  course  of  law. 
The  Army  can  not  enforce  these  statutes.  It  certainly  had  no  right  to  take  jurisdic- 
tion under  confiscation  and  oust  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States." 

Again,  neither  a  military  commandant  nor  the  courts  had  the  right  to  confiscate 
the  property  of  this  corporation.  "Confiscation  was  possible  only  to  the  extent 
and  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  acts  of  Congress.  These  acts  were  passed  on  the 
6th  of  August,  1861,  and  on  the  17th  of  July,  1862.  No  others  authorized  the  con- 
fiscation of  private  property,  and  they  prescribed  the  manner  in  which  alone  confis- 
cation could  be  made.  They  designated  Government  agents  for  seizing  enemies' 
property  and  they  directed  the  mode  of  procedure  for  its  condemnation  in  the 
courts.  The  system  devised  was  necessarily  exclusive.  No  authority  was  given  to 
a  military  commandant,  as  such,  to  effect  any  confiscation.  And  under  neither  of 
the  acts  was  the  property  of  a  banking  institution  (a  corporation)  made  confiscable. 
Both  of  them  had  in  view  the  property  of  natural  persons  who  were  public  enemies, 
of  persons  who  gave  aid  and  comfort  to  the  rebellion,  or  who  held  office  under  the 
Confederate  Government,  or  under  one  of  the  States  composing  it.  lu  no  one  of 
the  six  classes  of  persons  whose  property  was  by  the  act  of  1862  declared  subject  to 
confiscation  was  an  artificial  being  included."  (Planters'  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  16 
Wallace,  p.  483.) 

The  decision  of  the  court  that  property  is  not  confiscable  is  a  decision  that  the 
persons  or  corporations  who  own  such  property  have  the  right  to  enjoy  it. 

S.  Eep.  1416 4 


46  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

The  error  into  which  the  United  States  district  attorney  had  fallen  in  his  endeavor 
to  confiscate  the  property  of  this  publishing  house  corporation  was  recognized  in 
the  subsequent  dismissal  of  the  proceedings. 

After  General  Buell  had  entered  Nashville  the  corporation  of  book  agents  con- 
tinued its  business  of  publishing  books,  tracts,  etc.,  and  doing  job  work  for  its  cus- 
tomers, until  the  property  was  taken  possession  of  under  the  confiscation  proceedings, 
and  after  the  property  was  replevied  it  still  continued  business  and  remained  in  the 
possession  and  custody  of  the  book  agents  until  December,  1863,  when  the  entire 
establishment  was  taken  possession  of  by  the  Army. 

There  is  no  contention  that  this  publishing  house  or  any  of  the  agents  authorized 
to  represent  said  corporation  did  anything,  after  the  Federal  Army  took  possession 
of  Nashville,  not  in  perfect  keeping  with  their  obligations  as  law-abiding  citizens. 

On  the  28th  of  December,  1863,  while  the  confiscation  proceedings  were  pending, 
General  Thomas  issued  an  order,  addressed  to  Col.  J.  L.  Donaldson,  United  States 
quartermaster  at  Nashville,  stating : 

"It  has  been  for  a  long  time  in  contemplation  at  these  headquarters  to  make  an 
army  printing  office  of  the  Methodist  Publishing  House  in  Nashville.  The  house  has 
been  confiscated  by  the  United  States  Government  and  is  represented  as  being  in 
every  way  eligible  for  the  printing  of  blanks  and  orders  and  the  binding  of  the 
same,  and  by  being  run  by  the  Government  would  save  from  $25,000  to  $30,000  per 
year  to  the  Government,  without  counting  loss  of  time  in  getting  work  beyond  the 
Ohio." 

.This  order  asserts  that  the  house  "has  been  confiscated."  Such  was  not  the  fact. 
Proceedings  had  only  been  instituted  to  confiscate,  and  it  was  in  the  custody  of  the 
court  when  General  Thomas  ordered  its  seizure. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  property  was  not  taken  possession  of  as  captured  prop- 
erty. General  BuelFs  order  protected  it.  General  Thomas  did  not  withdraw  this 
protection.  On  the  contrary,  he  assumed  that  it  had  been  confiscated. 

It  was  not  seized,  with  reference  to  its  usefulness,  in  any  tactical  or  strategic 
sense  for  the  Army.  It  was  seized  to  save  money  in  printing  for  the  Army,  and  as  a 
convenience  for  the  civil  department  of  the  Government.  The  law  of  military 
necessity  did  not  apply.  A  publishing  house  is  in  no  respect  a  part  of  army  equip- 
ment. Only  the  protection  given  by  General  Buell's  proclamation  and  the  custodian- 
ship of  the  United  States  court  placed  this  property  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
ordinary  rules  which  apply  to  the  enemies'  property.  When  the  Government  gives 
such  protection  to  property,  it  assumes  to  pay  for  it,  if  any  urgent  necessity  requires 
it  to  apply  the  property  to  the  public  use. 

The  court  alone  can  render  judgment  of  forfeiture  in  such  cases,  and  can  alone 
condemn  and  confiscate  it;  and  when  it  is  proceeding  to  adjudicate  in  such  a  man-  ' 
ner  no  other  authority  can  take  the  matter  out  of  its  hands  and  confiscate  it.  Con- 
gress could  not  do  so  much,  and  it  is  not  possible  that  a  military  government  can 
lawfully  exercise  such  authority;  and  yet  this  is  the  precise  attitude  of  this  matter. 
The  property  was  seized  by  order  of  General  Thomas  as  confiscated  property  while 
the  United  States  was  suing  in  its  courts  for  its  condemnation. 

The  Government  admitted  by  its  refusal  to  prosecute  the  suit,  and  the  court 
decided,  that  this  property  never  was  forfeited  to  the  United  States  by  the  crime  of 
its  owner.  The  military  authorities  never  seized  the  property  as  "  captured  or  aban- 
doned property."  In  any  view  of  the  case  the  property  remained  the  property  of  the 
"Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South"  corporation,  and  was  not 
changed  by  either  its  legal  or  military  custody.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the 
order  of  General  Buell,  stating  that  "  if  the  necessities  of  the  public  service  should 
require  the  use  of  private  property  to  public  uses,  compensation  is  to  be  allowed," 
applies  in  its  fullest  sense  to  the  claim  of  this  corporation,  and  especially  since  this 
"law  of  compensation  declared  by  General  Buell  is  the  same  that  is  found  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  in  all  States  regulating  the  right  of  eminent 
domain." 

It  is  clear,  therefore : 

First.  That  even  though  the  publishing  house  might  have  been  considered  enemy's 
property  prior  to  the  occupation  of  Nashville  by  the  Federal  Army,  that  from 
and  after  February  26,  1862,  when  General  Buell  took  possession  of  Nashville  and 
issued  his  proclamation,  it  could  not  be  so  considered ;  that  the  occupation  of  Nash- 
ville by  the  Federal  Army  carried  with  it  "  the  full  measure  of  protection  to  persons 
and  property  consistent  with  a  necessary  subjection  to  military  government."  ("  The 
Venice,"  2d  Wallace,  p.  258.) 

Second.  That  the  property  of  the  Book  Agents  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South  was  not 
subject  to  confiscation,  and  especially  was  this  true  of  this  institution  as  a  corpora- 
tion. (Planters'  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  16  Wallace,  p.  483.) 

Third.  That  in  view  of  the  protection  vouchsafed  to  the  citizens  of  Nashville  under 
the  proclamation  of  General  Buell  and  the  laws  which  govern  under  such  circum- 
stances, this  publishing  house  corporation  is  entitled  to  compensatiou  for  the  use, 
occupancy,  and  injury  inflicted  upon  its  property  by  the  Army. 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 


47 


This  -was  understood  to  be  the  rale  applied  by  the  War  Department  in  the  payment 
of  church  claims,  on  the  dates  specified,  at  various  points  in  Tennessee,  for  use,  occu- 
pation, and  injury  inflicted  upon  said  churches  by  the  Army,  as  follows,  to  wit: 


Church. 

Amount  of 
payment. 

Date. 

Presbyterian,  Knoxville,  Tenn  

$2,  600.  00 

June  20,  1865 

Methodist  Episcopal,  Knoxville,  Tenn  

3,  600.  00 

Jan.     5,  1867 

343.00 

June  11,1866 

Baptist,  Knoxville,  Tcnn  

1,  200.  00 

Sept.    9,  1867 

Cumberland  Presbyterian,  Chattanooga,  Tenn  

2,  450.  00 

Feb.     3,  1866 

3,  640.  09 

Jan.   23,  1867 

Methodist  Church,  Carthage,  Tenn  .........  ..  

1,  200.  00 

Sept.    5,  1866 

Presby  tarian  Church,  Nasn  ville,  Tenn  

4,  599.  46 

May  20,  1865 

First  Baptist  Church,  Nashville,  Tenn  

5,  000.  00 

Nov.  29,  1865 

Second  Baptist  Church,  Nashville,  Tenn  ..  ......     .................. 

227.20 

Apr.    4,  1866 

(Report  1783,  House  Committee  on  War  Claims,  third  session  Fifty-third  Congress, 
pp.  18  to  21,  inclusive.) 

This  rule  should  apply  in  all  cases,  and  certainly  none  the  less  in  dealing  with  a 
corporation  representing  a  great  charity — a  purely  eleemosynary  institution,  one 
"  created  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  the  cause  of  Christianity  by  disseminating 
religious  knowledge  and  useful  literary  and  scientific  information,"  and  one  which, 
under  the  organic  Jaw  of  the  church,  sets  apart  and  devote*  its  entire  net  proceeds  for 
"the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out  preachers, 
their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

The  membership  of  the  church  represented  by  this  publishing  house  extends  over 
33  States  and  Territories  of  this  Union,  and  the  net  proceeds  of  the  publishing  house 
are  distributed  over  the  same  territory,  and  the  statement  of  the  book  committee  on 
file  with  the  War  Claims  Committee  shows  that  "in  the  distribution  of  its  charities 
no  discriminations  are  made;  that  the  questions  have  never  been  asked,  Was  he  loyal 
or  disloyal?  Was  he  a  Federal  or  Confederate  soldier t  Is  he  a  Republican,  Demo- 
crat, Populist,  or  Prohibitionist?  That  all  funds  have  been  distributed  without 
reference  to  such  matters,  upon  a  just  and  equitable  basis,  giving  to  the  needy  of 
Illinois,  Indiana,  and  other  States  and  Territories  of  the  North  the  same  pro  rata  that 
is  accorded  to  the  needy  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  other  States  of  the  South." 

Without  reference,  therefore,  to  the  war  or  the  relations  that  a  portion  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the  M.  E.  Church  South  may  have  sustained  to  it,  or  the  inhibition  which 
exempts  the  property  of  the  Book  Agents'  corporation  from  confiscation  or  other  dis- 
abilities arising  thereunder,  it  is  due  to  this  great  charity  to  aid  in  its  restoration, 
and  such  action  should  be  taken  by  Congress  as  will  be  productive  of  this  result. 

Congress  in  its  wisdom  has  applied  the  apparently  universal  law  of  natioas,  as 
embraced  in  General  Order,  No.  100,  issued  by  the  Adjutant- General  and  approved  by 
President  Lincoln  in  1863,  which,  as  a  general  rule,  throws  the  garb  of  protection 
around  "  the  property  belonging  to  churches,  to  hospitals,  or  other  establishments 
of  an  exclusively  charitable  character,"  and  gone  somewhat  beyond  it  in  dealing 
with  the  claims  presented  on  behalf  of  the  William  and  Mary  College  and  the 
Washington  and  Lee  University,  destroyed  by  the  United  States  troops,  by  appro- 
priating the  sums  necessary  to  secure  the  restoration  of  these  institutions.  From 
the  use  of  these  grounds  and  buildings  the  United  States  received  no  material  bene- 
fit, and  yet  Congress,  very  properly,  appropriated  money  to  restore  them.  How  much 
more  essential  and  proper,  therefore,  for  the  Government  to  provide  for  the  restora- 
tion of  the  charity  represented  by  this  publishing  house,  which  the  Army  of  the 
United  States  occupied  and  which,  as  shown  by  the  statement  of  Colonel  Wills,  the 
United  States  officer  in  charge,  enabled  him,  in  the  "  use  of  the  large  and  ample 
machinery,  extensive  buildings,  type,  and  printing  materials  of  said  publishing 
house,  to  furnish  the  Army  printing  at  an  enormous  saving  of  money  to  the 
Government." 

The  petitions  laid  before  Congress  some  twenty  years  ago,  as  shown  by  H.  R.  352, 
submitted  to  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  "represent  that  many  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  of  all  sections,  earnestly  desire  that  Congress  will  give  just  relief  in 
this  matter.  It  is  believed  that  no  private  claim  was  ever  presented  to  Congress  that 
was  so  extensively  and  earnestly  supported  by  various  memorials  and  recommenda- 
tions. That  four  are  from  State  legislatures;  one  from  the  general  conference  of  the 
Colored  Methodist  Church;  others  from  eight  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  viz,  Bishops  Morris,  Janes,  Simpson,  Ames,  Bowman,  Merrill,  Peck,  and 
Haven,  and  many  other  ministers  of  that  church ;  others  from  the  mayor  and  council 
of  Nashville,  and  of  Edgefield,  Tenn.,  another  from  the  governor  and  most  of  the 
officials,  national  and  State,  and  municipal  of  Nashville;  another  from  all  the  judges 


48  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

of  the  supreme  court  of  Tennessee,  with  its  entire  bar;  another  from  about  two  hnn- 
dred  merchants,  bankers,  and  business  houses  of  Nashville;  another  from  the  chiefs 
of  the  Indian  nation  west  of  Arkansas;  others  from  all  the  annual  conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South ;  others  from  many  of  the  leading  ministers  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  chiefly  iu  New  York,  Baltimore,  Washington,  etc. ; 
and  others  from  nearly  a  hundred  colleges  and  high  schools  in  many  parts  of  the 
country ;  and  still  others  from  about  three  thousand  individual  petitioners  in  about 
one  hundred  cities  and  towns  in  twenty-five  States.  These  last  include  about  one 
hundred  and  twenty  governors,  ex-governors,  judges,  and  Members  of  Congress,  and 
full  fiye  hundred  other  prominent  men  in  civil  office,  the  remainder  being  mostly 
lawyers,  doctors,  and  clergymen  of  all  denominations,  and  other  substantial  citi- 
zens, white  and  colored,  and  including  all  religions  beliefs,  Jews,  Catholics,  and 
Protestants." 

Need  anything  be  added f  If  so,  the  numerous  petitions  and  urgent  letters  of 
earnest  appeals  from  all  classes  of  people,  representing  the  various  church  denomi- 
nations ;  and  all  classes  and  shades  of  political  opinion  presented  to  Congress  at 
this  session,  and  written  to  Senators  and  Representatives,  will  attest  the  earnest  aim 
to  have  Congress  give  the  relief  prayed  for  by  such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to 
restore  this  charity. 

These  memorials,  letters,  and  petitions,  it  may  well  be  said,  "  indicate  a  sentiment 
which  is  honorable  to  the  people  and  most  gratifying  to  all  who  desire  that  onr  past 
differences  may  cease  to  be  remembered  as  causes  of  present  or  future  discord,  but 
may  only  be  adverted  to  as  admonitions  to  warn  us  against  like  evils." 

Congress,  it  may  with  regret  be  said,  has  not  been  able  to  agree  upon  a  sum  satis- 
factory either  to  the  claimants  or  itself,  which  ought  to  be  paid,  and  it  is  because  of 
this  inability  to  agree  that  S.  2962  has  been  submitted.  This  bill  refers  the  find- 
ing of  the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  with  authority  to  render  judg- 
ment, in  the  hope  and  belief  that  speedy  and  proper  relief  may  be  thus  afforded,  and 
that  the  sum  thus  found  shall  be  just  alike  to  the  United  States  u.nd  the  'audable 
charity  the  claimant  represents. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  May  7. 

Mr.  STAKLMAN  (continuing).  That  statement  was  sent  out  just  before 
the  Fifty- fifth  Congress  convened.  I  have  not  the  second  circular  here 
which  was  sent  out  at  the  same  time.  In  that  second  circular  special 
attention  was  called  to  the  number  of  new  Members  and  Senators-elect, 
and  the  intervention  of  our  friends  was  asked.  The  result  was  that 
when  the  Fifty- fifth  Congress  met  there  was  a  very  decided  feeling  here 
in  favor  of  the  passage  of  the  bill.  I  may  say  that  in  addition  to  these 
circulars  I  had  written  to  a  large  number  of  my  railroad  friends  all  over 
the  country  and  to  my  newspaper  friends  also  (because  I  own  a  news- 
paper), transmitting  to  them  the  printed  statement  of  the  case  and  asking 
them  for  help,  and  to  use  their  influence  and  good  will  to  help  us  to  get 
a  hearing  which  would  promote  the  consideration  of  the  claim.  They 
responded.  I  will  say  to  you  very  frankly  that  one  of  the  strongest  let- 
ters written  in  behalf  of  the  claim  was  written  by  Collis  P.  Huntington. 
He  is  probably  not  a  churchman.  I  do  not  know  that  he  cares  much 
about  the  church ;  but  he  was  impressed  with  the  statement.  He  knew 
me  personally,  and  lie  knew  that  I  was  decent,  or  at  all  events  he 
thought  so,  and  he  said,  "  When  Stahlman  asks  me  to  consider  a  ques- 
tion, I  will  do  it."  And  he  did  it,  and  probably  the  strongest  letter 
written  on  the  subject  was  written  by  Mr.  Huntington.  Other  railroad 
men  did  the  same  thing,  and  many  of  the  newspaper  men  likewise.  The 
Fifty-fifth  Congress  met,  and  I  came  here.  The  Senate  committee  in 
the  extra  session  had  again  passed  the  Court  of  Claims  bill. 

These  publishing  house  people  did  not  know  how.  long  it  might  hang 
fire  in  the  Court  of  Claims,  and  they  preferred  a  direct  appropriation, 
although  they  believed  the  Court  of  Claims  would  have  allowed  them 
more  money  than  the  direct  appropriation  would  give  them.  The  House 
committee  reported  again  in  favor  of  a  direct  appropriation.  Barbee 
&  Smith,  at  my  suggestion,  wrote  to  every  Senator.  I  did  not  seek  to 
make  myself  conspicuous  or  offensive  and  I  do  not  think  there  are  more 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  49 

than  two  or  three  Senators  on  the  committee  whom  I  know  personally. 
Barbee  and  Smith  wrote  to  Senators  asking  them  to  place  the  claim 
upon  the  omnibus  appropriation  bill  for  a  direct  appropriation  of 
$288,000,  and  the  Senate  committee  did  so.  The  House  committee  had 
reported  two  bills,  one  sending  the  matter  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  and 
the  other  making  a  direct  appropriation  of  $288,000.  On  consideration 
of  all  the  matters  in  connection  with  it,  and  from  what  I  knew  of  the 
situation  in  the  Court  of  Claims,  the  delays  incident  to  it,  and  the 
amount  of  interest  which  would  be  lost  by  the  de'ay,  the  Representative 
from  the  Nashville  district,  Mr.  Gaines,  was  requested  to  have  the  direct 
appropriation  bill  substituted  for  the  Court  of  Claims  bill  when  it  came 
up  in  the  House.  That  matter  was  discussed  in  the  House  for  three 
consecutive  Fridays.  Finally  the  bill,  upon  its  merits  (I  say  upon  its 
merits,  for  no  question  was  raised  as  to  a  fee  or  anything  like  it),  passed 
the  House,  notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  the  Speaker,  by  a  vote 
of  190  to  67.  It  came  to  the  Senate  just  as  soon  as  it  passed  the  House. 
I  did  not  worry  the  chairman  of  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims ;  I  did 
not  worry  any  members  of  that  committee ;  I  have  not  made  myself  disa- 
greeable about  the  matter  to  Senators.  I  have  acted  the  part  of  a  dig- 
nified gentleman.  As  soon  as  that  bill  passed  the  House  I  dictated  a 
telegraph  message  to  Barbee  and  Smith  asking  them  to  invoke  the  aid 
of  Senator  Bate  and  Senator  Pasco  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  House 
bill  independent  of  the  omnibus  bill,  because  I  had  doubts  as  to  whether 
the  omnibus  bill  covering  such  a  large  volume  of  claims  could  pass  the 
House.  I  was  not  advised  whether  that  request  was  carried  out.  Prob- 
ably it  was.  But  I  will  say  this,  that  in  addition  to  that  request  I  wrote 
letters  (I  did  it  as  the  attorney  of  these  people,  realizing  the  situation) 
to  the  honorable  chairman  and  members  of  this  committee;  sent  them 
to  Barbee  and  Smith  at  Nashville:  asked  them  to  look  them  over,  and 
if  they  approved  of  them  to  transmit  them  to  the  Senators  who  were 
members  of  the  committee,  asking  them  to  please  report  the  bill  favor- 
ably as  an  independent  measure,  because  they  were  of  the  opinion  that 
the  claim  in  the  omnibus  bill  might  not  pass.  The  following  is  a  copy 
of  the  letter  in  question : 

Hon.  HENRY  M.  TELLER, 

Chairman,  United  Slates  Senator,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  In  November  last  we  had  occasion  to  write  you  respecting  the  claim 
of  the  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  and  the  Committee  on 
Claims  of  the  Senate,  of  which  you  are  chairman,  appeared  to  appreciate  the  justice 
of  our  cause  and  recommended  the  insertion  of  a  provision  in  what  is  known  as  the 
omnibus  bill  for  an  appropriation  of  $288,000  to  reimburse  us  for  the  use  of  and 
injury  inflicted  upon  the  publishing  house  by  the  Federal  Army  during  the  war. 

A  bill  similar  to  the  provision  inserted  by  the  Senate  committee  in  the  omnibus 
bill  passed  the  House  to-day.  In  view  of  what  your  committee  has  already  done 
for  us  respecting  the  matter  we  are  persuaded  that  it  will  not  hesitate  to  recommend 
the  House  bill  favorably  and  to  ask  the  Senate  to  pass  this  bill. 

The  fate  of  the  omnibus  bill  in  either  the  House  or  the  Senate  can  hardly  be  pre- 
dicted and  it  is  therefore  desirable  that  our  bill,  which  has  already  passed'the 
House  by  such  a  large  majority,  shall  have  the  opportunity  of  being  considered  by 
the  Senate  upon  its  own  merits.  We  are  satisfied  that  you  will  be  willing  to  give  it 
this  direction. 

Inclosed  herewith  yo*u  will  find  a  pamphlet  covering  all  of  the  points  relating  to 
the  merits  of  the  House  bill,  which  we  trust  you  will  read  and  after  its  perusal  we 
hope  you  may  see  your  way  clear  and  that  it  will  be  your  pleasure  to  aid  us  in  this 
matter;  being  assured  in  advance  that  whatever  service  you  may  render  to  the 
church  shall  be  made  known  and  greatly  appreciated  by  the  entire  membership  of 
the  church. 

Very  truly,  yours,  BOOK  AGENTS. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  these  letters  signed  by  Barbee  and  Smith  t 
Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir.    Pending  the  action  of  the  Senate  com- 


50  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

mittee,  I  do  not  recollect  having  spoken  to  a  solitary  member  of  the 
committee,  except  to  the  distinguished  chairman  in  a  casual  way  in 
the  restaurant  of  the  Senate.  He  recognized  me  and  said,  k'  Do  not 
trouble  yourself  any  more  about  that  bill.  The  committee,  in  my  judg- 
ment, will  report  it,  and  the  Senate,  in  my  judgment,  will  pass  it." 
That  is  my  recollection  of  the  conversation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  recollect  any  conversation  about  it  myself. 
I  do  not  recall  your  ever  saying  anything  about  the  claim  except  when 
you  brought  Mr.  Tate's  letter,  at  the  time  you  appeared  before  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  was  a  casual  conversation.  You  were  just  pass- 
ing by.  It  made  an  impression  on  my  mind. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  after  we  had  the  bill  before  us,  I  suppose? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Exactly.  I  think  I  said  something  to  Senator  Clay 
about  it;  that  it  was  important  to  get  the  bill  reported  speedily  and 
that  I  hoped  he  would  use  his  efforts  in  that  direction,  and  my  recol- 
lection is  that  he  said  he  would. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Come  down  to  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  have  just  one  little  addenda  to  make  to  what  I 
have  stated  before,  and  then  I  will  come  to  the  time  of  the  vote,  or  a 
day  or  two  prior  to  it.  Before  the  holidays  in  1897  I  knew  that  the 
bill  was  on  the  Calendar  so  that  it  would  be  reached. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  on  the  Calendar  of  the  House? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes.  All  that  we  would  require  was  a  direct  inter- 
est to  be  taken  in  the  bill  by  the  men  who  claimed  to  be  friendly  to  it. 
I  talked  with  several  on  whom  we  relied  for  support,  but  who  seemed 
to  be  indifferent.  I  wrote  Barbee  and  Smith  a  letter  dated  December 
16, 1897,  stating  all  the  facts  as  I  saw  them  at  the  time,  and  Barbee  and 
Smith  sent  these  people  the  facts  in  a  circular  letter  dated  December 
21, 1897. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Whom  do  you  mean  by  "these  people?" 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  ministers  and  laymen  of  the  church  all  over 
the  country. 

The  circular  is  as  follows : 

OUR  CLAIM  AGAINST  THE   GOVERNMENT. 

PUBLISHING  HOUSE  M.  E.  CHURCH  SOUTH, 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  December  21,  1897. 

DEAR  BROTHER:  We  hasten  to  transmit  to  the  brethren  copy  of  a  communication 
which  we  have  just  received  from  Washington,  and  which  shows  a  favorable  yet 
critical  condition  of  affairs  respecting  our  claim  against  the  Government,  and  indi- 
cates the  necessity  for  some  active  work  among  the  brethren.  The  letter  is  as 
follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  December  16, 1897. 

Messrs.  BARBEE  AND  SMITH,  Book  Agents,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

GENTLEMEN:  When  the  United  States  Army  took  possession  of  the  Publishing 
House  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  the  estimated  value  of  the  plant 
was  $700,000.  When  the  Government,  in  1865,  returned  the  property  to  its  owners 
its  assets,  including  realty,  were  estimated  approximately  at  about  $200,000,  showing 
a  loss  in  the  value  of  the  property  of  about  $500,000,  mainly  due  to  its  use  and  abuse 
by  the  United  States  Army  during  the  war.  When,  therefore,  in  1877  the  agent  of 
the  Publishing  House  agreed  to  accept  $288,000  he  went  as  far  as  he  was  authorized 
.to  go  in  his  endeavor  to  reach  a  settlement  of  the  claim,  and  the  sum  of  $288,000  is 
believed  to  be  considerably  less  than  would  be  granted  by  the  Court  of  Claims;  and 
yet,  to  avoid  delay  incident  to  the  prosecution  of  the  claim  before  the  Court  of 
Claims  (which  in  a  number  of  cases  pending  has  extended  over  a  period  of  three 
to  ten  years),  a  direct  appropriation  is  considered  infinitely  preferable.  Realizing 
this,  we  have  secured  favorable  reports  from  House  and  Senate  committees  for  a 
direct  appropriation  of  $288,000,  and  the  bills  are  on  the  Calendar,  so  that  they  may 
be  reached  early  after  the  holidays. 

The  action  we  are  asking  Congress  to  take  has  many  precedents.    By  an  order 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  51 

issued  by  the  War  Department  on  April  24,  1863,  approved  by  President  Lincoln, 
"all  property  belonging  to  churches,  colleges,  schools,  and  educational  institutions 
•was  exempt  from  the  hostilities  of  war."  In  other  words,  such  property  was  not  to 
be  used,  injured,  or  destroyed,  except  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity,  and  in  such 
cases  such  use  or  injury  was  to  be  paid  for.  Acting  under  this  rule  (which,  by  the 
way,  is  one  followed  by  all  of  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world),  the  War  Department 
and  Congress  have  paid  a  large  number  of  claims,  aggregating  about  $500,000.  The 
following  are  some  of  the  claims  paid  by  direct  appropriations  during  the  past  few 
years : 

Kentucky  University,  at  Lexington,  Ky.,  use,  occupation,  and  injury $25, 000. 00 

Kentucky  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  Association,  use,  occupation,  and 

injury 25,000.00 

East  Tennessee  University,  use,  occupation,  and  injury 18,500.00 

University  of  Alabama,  for  loss  of  building  by  fire  during  military  opera- 
tions, 46,080  acres  of  public  land  to  be  applied  to  the  erection  of  suitable 
buildings. 

William  and  Mary  College,  of  Virginia,  destroyed  by  fire  immediately  after 
a  conflict  between  the  Union  and  Confederate  forces 64,  000. 00 

Washington  and  Lee  University,  injury  to  building,  apparatus,  and  libra- 
ries by  soldiers  without  authority 17,  848.  00 

Protestant  Episcopal  Theological  "Seminary,  Alexandria,  Va.,  use,  occu- 
pation, and  injury 20, 000. 00 

Roman  Catholic  Church  of  Charles  County,  Md.,  use,  occupation,  and 
injury 4,035.50 

Roman  Catholic  Church  at  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  for  use  and  inj nry 18, 729. 09 

All  of  these  claims,  as  already  stated,  were  paid  by  direct  appropriation  from 
Congress  without  the  intervention  of  the  Court  of  Claims ;  and,  while  these  claims 
were  meritorious  and  ought  to  have  been  paid,  they  were  not  as  meritorious  as  your 
publishing  house  claim.  Congress  has,  in  fact,  paid  no  claim  which  in  merit  ap- 
proximates the  claim  of  the  publishing  house. 

The  publishing  house,  with  its  magnificent  machinery,  was  taken  possession  of 
by  the  Army;  k«-pt  for  nearly  two  years;  used  for  printing  blanks  for  the  armies  of 
the  Cumberland  and  Mississippi ;  and  the  Government,  as  shown  by  the  testimony, 
sared  large  sums  of  money  in  the  printing  of  these  blanks  and  books.  Whereas  in 
the  case  of  the  Washington  and  Lee  University,  the  William  and  Mary  College,  and 
the  Alabama  University  no  benefits  whatever  were  derived  by  the  Government; 
while  in  the  cases  of  the  Kentucky  University,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Seminary, 
the  Catholic  churches  of  Chattanooga  and  Charles  County,  Md.,  and  others,  the 
benefits  derived  by  the  Government  in  their  use  and  occupation  were  but  a  trifle  as 
compared  with  the  large  benefits  derived  from  the  use  of  the  publishing  house.  And 
yet  these  claims  have  been  paid,  while  your  claim  remains  unpaid.  The  reasons,  in 
my  judgment,  are  apparent.  In  the  former  cases  a  number  of  Southern  Members 
worked  energetically  to  pass  the  bills.  In  your  case  Members  seem  inactive  and 
apparently  indifferent.  This  applies  to  Members  without  regard  to  church  or  party 
affiliations. 

A  moat  remarkable  fact  in  connection  with  the  payment  of  war  claims  is  that 
churches  with  comparatively  little  numerical  strength  or  influence  in  our  section 
have  succeeded  in  getting  their  claims  paid,  while  our  claim,  backed  by  the  largest 
membership  of  any  in  the  South,  has  been  allowed  to  remain  unadjusted  for  over 
thirty  years.  And  this  failure  is  not  due  to  sectional  prejudice,  which  applies 
equally  to  all  churches  and  schools.  Nor  is  it  due  to  the  erroneous  assumption  that 
our  church  was  in  a  measure  largely  responsible  for  the  war.  McPherson's  His- 
tory of  the  Churches  and  the  War  shows  that  all  denominations  in  the  South  were 
equally  active  in  their  endeavor  to  promote  the  success  of  the  Southern  cause. 
Moreover,  the  courts  have  wisely  held  that  a  corporate  body,  such  as  a  school  or 
church,  representing  the  educational  and  religious  interests  of  a  community,  can 
not  be  held  to  be  disloyal;  and  all  of  the  legislation  had  by  Congress  for  the  relief 
of  the  institutions  named  proceeded  upon  this  idea,  which  applies  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South  with  as  much  force  as  to  any  other. 

I  say,  therefore,  and  with  much  disappointment  and  regret,  that  our  trouble  lies 
mainly  in  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  members  are  unmindful  of  your  inter- 
est. I  was  informed  yesterday  and  again  to-day  that  certain  leading  Members  from 
the  South,  who  had  told  me  and  had  written  their  constituents  that  they  would  sup- 
port your  bill,  had  given  expressions  of  indifference  as  to  the  result.  Of  course  if 
Members  from  our  section  act  that  way,  it  will  be  found  practically  impossible  to 
interest  a  sufficient  number  of  Northern,  Eastern,  and  Western  Congressmen  and 
Senators  to  secure  its  passage. 

Thirty-four  years  have  elapsed  since  our  property  was  taken  possession  of  by  the 
Army ;  and  now  that  we  have  at  last  gotten  to  the  point  where  relief  is  within 
reach,  it  begins  to  look  as  though  we  may  be  prevented  from  securing  it  by  the 
inaction  of  Members  of  Congress  from  our  own  section. 


52  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

H.  R.  4829,  "  for  the  relief  of  the  book  agents,"  is  the  bill  we  wish  to  pass.  It  has 
the  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  War  Claims;  in  fact,  a  similar  bill  has 
been  recommended  by  four  different  committees  during  four  previous  sessions  of 
Congress.  This  bill  appropriates  $288,000.  If  this  snm  had  been  paid  at  the  close 
of  the  war,  and  had  with  accrued  interest  from  year  to  year  been  loaned  at  the 
rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum,  the  publishing  house  would  to-day  have  $1,000,976.40 
in  its  treasury. 

If  it  had  been  loaned  at  6  per  cent,  it  would  to-day  have  $1,855,497.82  in  its 
treasury. 

And  u  it  had  been  loaned  at  8  per  cent  (the  prevailing  rate  of  interest  in  Tennes- 
see and  the  South),  it  would  to-day  have  $3,379,565.70  in  its  treasury. 

But  suppose  the  Government  had  paid  only  half  the  amount— i.  e.,  $144,000 — and 
had  paid  that  money  when  itsurrended  the  property,  the  $144,000  loaned  at  the  rate 
of  4  per  cent  per  annum,  with  accrued  interest  from  year  to  year,  would  have  put 
into  the  treasury  of  the  publishing  house  at  the  end  of  thirty-two  years  $504,901.15; 
at  the  rate  of  6  per  cent,  $927,220.04;  and  at  the  rate  of  8  per  cent,  $1,689,802.86. 

Or  suppose  tbe  Government  (leaving  out  of  consideration  the  great  loss  and  dam- 
age to  the  property)  had  paid  only  $75,000,  the  sum  admittedly  saved  by  it  in 
printing  blanks,  etc.,  for  its  Army,  and  had  paid  it  when  the  work  was  done.  That 
snm,  if  loaned  at  interest  of  6  per  cent  and  reinvested  from  year  to  year,  would  now 
equal  $498,300.10;  and  if  loaned  at  8  per  cent  (the  prevailing  rate  in  Tennessee) 
would  equal  the  sum  of  $881,867.34. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  late  distinguished  Senatqr 
from  Tennessee,  the  Hon.  Isham  G.  Harris,  should  just  before  his  death  have  said 
that  "the  $288,000,  if  paid  now,  will  give  but  a  meager  compensation  to  these 
claimants  for  the  use  of  and  injury  to  their  property  by  the  Army  over  thirty  years 
ago." 

Senator  Harris  was  a  member  of  the  Claims  Committee  of  the  Senate  that  investi- 
gated the  subject  thoroughly  twenty  years  ago.  He  favored  the  payment  of  $288,000 
then,  and  those  who  knew  his  sterling  worth,  rugged  honesty,  and  the  painstaking 
character  of  his  labor  respecting  any  question  committed  to  his  charge,  will  admit 
that  his  indorsement  puts  the  justice  of  the  claim  beyond  cavil  or  doubt. 

What  I  advise  is  that  you  at  once  apprise  the  brethren  throughout  the  South  of 
the  situation,  and  ask  them  to  again  and  at  once  write  their  members  and  urge  them 
to  activity;  requesting  them  not  only  to  vote  for  the  bill  making  a  direct  appropria- 
tion, but  to  use  their  best  endeavor  to  secure  the  votes  of  members  from  the  North, 
East,  and  West.  Our  Southern  representatives  should  understand  that  if  the  bill 
fails  to  pass  it  will  be  their  fault.  These  letters  should  be  written  by  ministers, 
laymen,  and  friends  of  members  of  Congress,  who  have  influence  with  such  mem- 
bers, and  they  should  be  addressed  to  such  members  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  so  as  to 
reach  them  not  later  than  the  5th  of  January,  1898,  when  Congress  reconvenes.  The 
bill  is  likely  to  be  considered  on  the  7th,  which  is  the  first  private-bill  daj  there- 
after, and  it  is  essential  that  Southern  members  shall  have  a  day  or  two  in  which  to 
help  work  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  with  members  representing  the  Northern, 
Eastern,  and  Western  States. 

I  repeat,  your  matter  was  never  before  in  as  good  shape  as  now,  and  if  it  fails  to 
pass  Southern  members  will  be  responsible  for  that  failure. 

I  write  plainly  and  urgently,  because  I  am  on  the  ground,  appreciate  the  difficul- 
ties, and  am  deeply  impressed  with  the  gravity  of  the  situation.  Please  urge  the 
brethren  to  work  quickly. 

Later  on  you  shall  be  advised  of  the  result  and  the  action  of  each  individual 
member.    Such  a  report  will  be  due  to  you  and  myself,  as  your  representative  and 
friend,  as  well  as  to  members  of  Congress  and  their  constituents. 
Yours,  truly, 

E.  B.  STAHLMAN. 

The  foregoing  statement  is  so  clear  that  comment  appears  unnecessary.  We  have 
called  on  the  brethren  for  much  help;  all  of  which  has  been  willingly  granted  and 
is  fully  appreciated.  We  make  this  last  urgent  appeal.  Won't  you  please  go  to 
work  immediately  and  have  some  strong  letters  written  to  your  members  of  Con- 
gress on  the  lines  indicated  by  Mr.  Stahlman. 

From  what  we  know  of  the  situation  we  are  prepared  to  concur  in  the  view  that 
if,  after  having  gotten  our  matter  in  such  excellent  shape,  we  shall  fail  to  pass  it 
the  failure  will  be  due  to  the  inactivity  of  the  Southern  members  of  Congress. 

Yours,  truly,  BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Book  Agents. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  (continuing).  I  suppose  the  number  of  these  circulars 
that  were  sent  would  reach  to  three,  four,  or  five  thousand.  When  I 
came  back  after  the  holidays  I  discovered  that  some  of  the  members  felt 
a  little  aggrieved.  They  generally  felt,  however,  that  that  was  their 
opportunity  to  pass  the  bill;  that  it  was  in  a  position  where  it  could  be 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  53 

passed,  and  they  fell  into  line  and  worked  to  pass  it.  Some  of  them 
talked  a  little  about  the  lobby  and  all  that  sort  of  stuff;  and  I  said  to 
them,  "  If  you  think  there  is  a  lobby  at  the  back  of  it,  you  had  better 
look  to  the  lobby  at  home.  There  are  thousands  of  people  in  your 
district  who  want  this  bill  passed."  After  the  passage  of  the  bill  by 
the  House  there  was  some  little  delay  in  getting  the  matter  up  in  the 
Senate.  In  the  meantime  the  same  effort  which  had  been  made  to 
develop  my  pecuniary  relations  to  the  claim  when  it  was  before  the 
House  developed  here  in  the  Senate;  perhaps  not  through  Senators — 
I  did  not  understand  it  so — but  through  the  people  who  congregate 
about  the  halls  of  the  Capitol.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  name  these 
people;  everybody  knows  they  are  here,  and  everybody  knows  they 
are  here  for  money.  The  only  way  I  could  be  true  to  the  pledge  I 
made  to  our  people  was  to  keep  these  outsiders  from  knowing  what 
arrangement  was  made,  for  if  it  had  been  known  that  ten,  or  fifteen, 
or  twenty,  or  thirty,  or  thirty-five  per  cent,  or  any  other  sum  was  to  be 
paid,  I  would  not  have  been  willing  to  assume  any  responsibility  in  the 
matter. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  do  not  catch  your  idea. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  mean  to  reflect  upon  Senators.  I  had  a  case 
from  my  State,  and  the  very  day  it  came  up  in  the  House  men  sent  a 
telegram  saying  that  the  thing  was  a  fraud,  and  to  kill  it;  and  I  felt 
that  like  influences  might  be  brought  to  bear  in  the  Senate  to  kill 
this  bill.  I  did  not  want  to  hire  a  horde  of  lobbyists.  Although 
I  have  been  denominated  a  lobbyist,  there  is  not  a  Senator  who  can  say 
truthfully  (and  I  do  not  suppose  any  Senator  would  say  anything  that 
is  not  true)  that  I  lobbied  with  him.  In  all  my  interviews  with  Sen- 
ators, and  they  were  limited,  I  acted  the  part  of  a  dignified,  manly 
gentleman  all  the  way  through.  I  knew  that  there  was  justice  in 
the  claim,  and  that  there  were  influences  at  work  which  ought  to 
pass  the  bill  without  any  corrupt  means,  and  I  brought  those  influences 
to  bear.  When  that  rumor  came  to  me  I  had  sacredly  promised  myself 
that  I  would  not  say  a  word  about  the  fee,  and  even  the  man  most  inti- 
mate with'  me,  and  who  had  helped  me  as  an  attorney,  knew  nothing 
at  all  about  the  matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  refer  to  this  contract? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes;  I  had  promised  that  I  would  let  no  man  know 
anything  about  it,  for  the  reasons  which  I  have  stated,  because  if  the 
fact  had  been  known  I  do  not  believe  the  question  could  have  been  con- 
sidered on  its  merits.  I  believe  that  it  would  have  been  considered  with 
a  prejudice  against  the  claim. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  I  think  you  are  right  about  that.  When  did 
that  rumor  reach  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  About  two  days  before. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Through  whom? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Senator  Bacon  was  the  first  one. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  How  many  days  was  that  before  the  passage 
of  the  bill  in  the  Senate? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Hot  more  than  two  days — perhaps  the  day  before. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Where  did  the  conversation  occur? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  occurred  in  the  room  adjacent  to  the  marble  room. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Senator  Bacon  informed  you  that  there  was  a 
rumor  afloat  that  you  were  to  get  a  large  fee  out  of  the  claim? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  He  did. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  reply  did  you  make  to  him? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  said  to  him,  "  Senator  Bacon,  what  has  that  to  do 
with  this  question?  Is  the  Senate,  after  thirty  years  delay, in  the  con- 


54  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

sideration  of  the  matter,  going  to  consider  whether  these  people  think 
it  necessary  or  expedient  to  employ  an  attorney?"  I  said,  "  The  claim 
is  just  on  its  merits."  I  said,  "A  committee  of  intelligent  Senators 
has  twice  at  this  session  of  Congress,  without  reference  to  such  rumors, 
decided  upon  the  merits  of  the  claim  and  reported  a  bill  for  its  pas- 
sage. Why  raise  this  question  now?  I  do  not  think  it  has  a  blessed 
thing  to  do  with  the  case.  You  can  say  that  I  have  no  contract  with 
the  book  agents;  and  that  every  dollar  of  the  claim  goes  into  the 
treasury." 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Was  that  statement  true? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes;  it  was.  My  contract  was  with  the  book  com- 
mittee, although  I  have  since  understood  that  for  legal  considerations 
the  book  agents  found  it  necessary  to  sign  the  contract  themselves. 
I  made  the  statement  for  this  reason:  I  did  not  believe  that  the  Sen- 
ate of  the  United  States  at  that  juncture  could  have  considered  the 
case  upon  its  merits.  I  told  no  falsehood.  I  concealed  some  facts. 
I  am  free  to  say  that  Senator  Bacon  had  a  right  to  assume  that  there 
was  no  contract  of  any  kind.  While  I  was  guarded,  I  was  exact  in 
what  I  said,  and  I  knew  that  I  told  no  falsehood  in  saying  it.  I  admit 
that  I  concealed  some  facts. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Let  me  understand  you,  so  that  no  wrong  im- 
pression may  grow  out  of  your  statement.  Did  Senator  Bacon  not  ask 
you  the  direct  question  as  to  whether  you  were  to  get  a  percentage  of 
the  claim  as  a  fee? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  If  he  did  I  did  not  answer  that.  What  I  answered 
was  that  I  had  no  contract  with  the  book  agents;  that  every  dollar  of 
the  money  would  go  into  the  treasury ;  and  I  told  the  truth. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Why  did  you  mention  the  book  agents? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Because  I  did  not  have  a  contract  with  them.  My 
agreement  was  with  the  book  committee. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Senator  Bacon  was  not  asking  whether  you  had 
contract  with  the  book  agents  or  the  book  committee,  was  he? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  know  that  he  put  the  question  in  that  form. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  he  ask  you  whether  or  not  you  had  a  con- 
tingent fee  in  this  claim? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  He  did  not.  I  will  say  this,  though,  for  Senator 
Bacon;  he  had  a  right  to  assume  that  no  contract  existed. 

The' CHAIRMAN.  And  that  no  fee  was  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  I  will  now  read  to  you  from  Senator  Bacon's 
speech  in  the  Senate: 

In  my  conversation  with  the  Senator  from  Tennessee  and  others  before  going  to 
Bee  Mr.  Stahlman  no  mention  was  made  of  any  percentage,  and  in  my  conversation 
with  him  (Stahlman)  there  was  no  mention  of  any  percentage.  It  was  simply  a 
question  whether  or  not  there  was  a  large  fee  to  be  paid  to  him  and  others  out  of 
the  recovery  on  account  of  this  cl»iinof  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  and  his  assur- 
ance to  me  that  there  was  no  such  contract,  but  that  there  would  necessarily  be 
some  expenses  to  be  paid. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  He  said  something  about  expenses.  I  am  54  years 
of  age,  and  I  know  the  meaning  of  the  English  language,  and  I  know 
that  in  that  conversation  I  said  nothing  in  the  world  that  was  not  true, 
although  1  admit  that  I  did  not  say  all  that  I  knew  about  the  contract, 
and  that  Senator  Bacon  had  a  perfect  right  to  assume  that  there  was 
no  contract. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Then  you  deliberately  misled  him? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir;  I  deny  that. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  did  mislead  him? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  You  may  assume  so. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  55 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  intended  to  mislead  him? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  intended  to  keep  from  him  facts  which  he  had  no 
business  to  know,  and  which  I  was  afraid  would,  if  known,  prevent  the 
consideration  of  the  bill  upon  its  merits. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  know  that  Senator  Bacon  was  under- 
taking at  that  time  to  ascertain  facts  on  which  he  might  vote? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  was  surprised  to  hear  Senator  Bacon's  statement 
on  that  subject,  that  if  he  had  known  there  was  to  be  a  fee  he  would 
not  have  voted  for  the  bill.  It  does  seem  to  me  surprising,  in  view  of 
all  the  circumstances  and  all  the  facts  in  relation  to  this  claim  in  Con- 
gress, that  it  should  have  come  up  and  been  discussed  in  relation  to  the 
amount  of  fee,  and  that  the  claim  was  not  to  be  considered  on  its 
merits. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  That  is  hardly  an  answer  to  my  question. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel)  (to  Senator  Fairbanks).  What  was  the  date 
of  the  conversation  to  which  you  refer? 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  It  was  the  day  of  the  passage  of  the  bill,  and  the 
speech  from  which  I  read  an  extract  was  delivered  on  the  13th  of  June. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Here  is  what  Senator  Bacon  said  after  referring  to 
the  conversation  with  the  Senator  from  Indiana  (Mr.  Fairbanks) : 

I  immediately  sought  Mr.  Stablman,  who  was  the  only  man  I  knew  connected  with 
the  matter.  I  stated  to  him  the  report  which  was  being  circulated  and  asked  whether 
it  was  true.  He  stated  to  me  personally  and  emphatically  that  there  was  no  contract 
of  any  kind  for  the  payment  of  a  fee  to  anybody — to  himself  or  any  one  else. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Senator  Bacon's  speech  in  which  he  mentioned  my 
name  was  not  made  while  the  bill  was  pending.  My  name  was  not 
referred  to  in  that  debate.  It  was  on  the  resolution  of  investigation. 
I  talked  with  that  Senator  last  night  about  it,  and  remarked  that  what 
I  said  was  that  I  had  no  contract  with  the  book  agents;  and  he  said  to 
me  "I  think  it  probable  you  did  say  that." 

The  CHAIRMAN  (continuing  to  read): 

Adding  that,  of  course,  there  were  some  necessary  expenses  which  would  have  to 
be  paid,  and  while  the  amount  of  these  expenses  was  not  indicated  by  him  in  any 
way,  the  impression  left  upon  my  mind  was  that  they  were  comparatively  insignifi- 
cant. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  (after  looking  at  the  pamphlet  report  of  Senator 
Bacon's  speech).  Senator  Bacon  did  not  state  the  conversation  exactly 
as  it  occurred,  but  he  did  in  substance. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  He  stated  the  effect  of  it,  did  he  not! 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  does  not  pretend  to  give  the  exact  language. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  intend  to  call  in  question  the  right  of  Sen- 
ator Bacon  to  assume  from  what  I  said  that  I  was  to  get  no  tee.  I  do 
not  call  that  in  question ;  and  I  will  say  that  with  reference  to  other 
Senators,  if  you  please,  who  claim  that  they  had  any  talk  with  me  on 
the  subject  since  the  contract  was  made. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  other  Senators  have  you  talked  with  on 
the  subject? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  recollect.  I  understand  Senator  Clay  says 
I  talked  with  him. 

Senator  CLAY.  My  recollection  is  this:  The  bill  was  on  its  passage 
and  the  amendment  of  Senator  Lodge  was  pending.  My  recollection  is 
that  I  stated  to  you  that  it  was  claimed  that  large  fees  were  to  be  paid, 
and  that  a  large  amount  of  the  money  was  not  to  go  into  the  church. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Was  that  the  day  of  the  debate? 

Senator  CLAY.  I  think  it  was.  My  recollection  is  that  I  asked  you 
all  about  it,  and  that  you  said  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  might 


56  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

endanger  the  passage  of  the  bill;  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  rumor; 
that  you  asked  me  to  go  back  and  so  state,  and  that  I  went  back  and 
said  that  I  was  authorized  to  make  that  statement. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  undertake  to  say  that  what  I  said  to  you 
was  not  sufficient  to  cause  you  to  believe  that  no  fee  was  to  be  paid. 
But  I  was  very  guarded  in  what  I  said.  If  I  said  anything  it  was  that 
there  was  no  contract  with  the  book  agents,  and  that  the  money  was 
all  to  go  into  the  treasury. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  can  not  give  you  the  exact  language,  but  the  infer- 
ence that  I  drew  from  what  you  said  was  that  there  was  no  contract. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  am  free  to  confess  that  you  had  a  right  to  draw 
that  inference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  intended  that  he  should  draw  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  was  perfectly  willing  that  he  should.  I  will  repeat 
again  in  that  connection  that  it  seemed  to  me  that  just  at  that  juncture, 
when  the  bill  should  be  considered  on  its  merits,  the  Abjection  should 
not  be  raised  that  somebody  was  going  to  get  something  out  of  it.  I 
believed  from  the  fact  that  the  bill  had  been  in  the  Senate  for  twenty 
years  without  a  report  the  book  committee  was  justified  in  employing 
an  attorney,  that  as  Congress  had  necessitated  the  employment  of  an 
attorney  it  did  not  seem  to  me  that  the  employment  of  an  attorney,  or 
the  fee  that  he  was  to  get  out  of  it,  had  any  bearing  on  the  merits  of  the 
claim  itself.  And  right  on  that  point  I  want  to  say  this:  There  is  an 
impression  abroad  (and  I  see  it  stated  here  in  the  Eecord)  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  is  a  very  rich  man.  Of  course  the  Senator  who  said  so 
believed  what  he  said. 

Senator  CLAY.  That  does  not  affect  the  case. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  does  affect  it  in  this  respect — that,  being  a  rich 
man,  I  was  ready  to  rob  my  church.  That  is  the  point.  1  do  not 
occupy  that  attitude  and  do  not  intend  to  be  placed  in  the  attitude  of 
robbing  my  church,  and  I  hope  that  this  committee  and  its  chairman 
will  not  seek  to  obstruct  me  in  placing  on  the  records  of  Congress  the 
facts  connected  with  this  matter,  so  far  as  I  ain  concerned.  I  am  not  a 
rich  man.  I  am  a  liberal  man.  I  give  away  of  this  world's  goods  just 
as  I  would  throw  chaff  to  the  winds.  I  am  not  a  rich  man.  When  the 
question  was  put  to  me  whether  or  not  I  would  accept  the  receivership 
of  the  Atchison  road  or  assume  the  responsibility  of  undertaking  to  col- 
lect this  claim  I  did  not  know  whether  its  collection  would  take  four, 
six,  ten,  or  twenty  years,  but  I  chose  the  latter.  I  chose  the  collection 
of  this  claim  because  1  had  been  impressed  with  the  justice  of  it,  and 
that  sentiment,  which  is  so  full  in  our  section,  caused  me  to  overlook,  if 
you  please,  the  dangers  of  the  situation,  and  to  accept  the  risk  of  doing 
this  service  and  obtaining  this  benefit  for  the  church,  with  the  oppor- 
tunity at  the  same  time  of  compensating  myself. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Where  were  you  when  this  bill  passed  the 
Senate? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  was  in  the  Senate  restaurant. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  knew  that  the  question  had  been  raised  on 
the  floor  of  the  Senate  as  to  a  fee? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  knew  nothing  about  it — not  a  bit.  It  never 
occurred  to  me  that  such  a  question  would  be  raised. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  But  you  do  know  that  prior  to  the  passage  of 
the  bill  in  the  Senate  certain  Senators  had  conversed  with  you  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  report  concerning  this  contingent  fee? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Senator  Bacon  was  one  of  the  men  who  talked  with 
me,  and  I  have  a  distinct  recollection  of  what  transpired  with  Senator 
Bacon. 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  57 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  other  Senators  talked  with  you  besides 
Senator  Bacon  and  Senator  Clay? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  I  talked  with  Senator  Lindsay  at  his  hotel. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  With  reference  to  this  rumor? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  did  you  say  to  Senator  Lindsay? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Senator  Lindsay  did  nearly  all  the  talking  and  I 
silently  assented.  If  I  had  not  pledged  myself  from  the  beginning  not 
to  reveal  this  contract  to  anybody,  Senator  Lindsay  is  one  of  the  men 
to  whom  I  should  have  told  everything. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  could  have  mentioned  the  contract  to  him 
without  imperiling  the  bill. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  according  to  the  statements  of  Senators  without 
seeing  poverty  staring  me  in  the  face.  I  had  worked  upon  the  claim 
for  years,  spending  my  money  upon  it,  and  I  felt  that  I  was  entitled 
to  just  compensation  in  connection  with  it.  That  is  what  the  church 
believed ;  at  all  events  the  book  committee  believed  it. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  led  Senator  Lindsay  to  infer  either  by  your 
direct  statement  or  by  your  manner  that  there  was  no  foundation  what- 
ever for  the  rumor? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Senator  Lindsay  had  a  perfect  right  to  assume  that 
there  were  no  attorney's  fees  to  be  paid  except  possibly  the  fee  of  an 
attorney  in  Washington.  I  think  I  said  that  an  attorney  had  been 
employed  in  Washington. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.    But  that  no  fee  was  coming  to  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  He  had  a  perfect  right  to  assume  that.  I  said  to 
him  substantially  what  I  had  said  to  Senator  Bacon. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  went  to  Senator  Lindsay's  hotel  a  ad  there 
had  this  conversation? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  question  was  brought  up  by  him.  I  have  known 
Senator  Lindsay  for  many  years. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  have  a  similar  conversation  with  any 
other  Senator  in  the  three  years  that  you  have  been  prosecuting  this 
claim? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  only  conversations  I  recall  are  those  with  Sena- 
tors Lindsay,  Bacon,  and  Teller,  though  I  do  not  call  in  question  the 
statement  of  Senators  Clay  or  Bate. 

Senator  CLAY  :  Here  is  what  I  said  in  the  Senate : 

I  desire  to  say  to  the  Senator  that  I  am  informed,  and  I  think  reliably,  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  has  not  an  agent  here  to  look  after  this  claim.  I 
understand  that  all  his  expenses  are  paid  by  the  church,  and  for  his  services  he 
charges  nothing.  The  church  was  simply  represented  here  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
senting papers  and  affidavits  to  establish  the  justice  of  the  claim,  and  I  understand 
that  not  a  cent  of  it  will  be  paid  to  anybody. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  have  no  recollection  of  any  conversation  upon  this 
subject  with  Senator  Clay,  although  that  conversation  may  have  taken 
place.  One  thing  I  do  know,  and  that  is  that  while  I  did  not  care  or 
wish  (but,  on  the  contrary,  desired  to  avoid)  revealing  all  the  facts  in 
connection  with  the  contract,  I  made  no  statement  which  within  its 
limit  was  not  true.  And  right  upon  this  point  I  know  that  in  ordi- 
nary cases  the  concealment  of  a  fact  is  considered  equivalent  to  a  false- 
hood. But  surely  it  can  not  be  so  in  this  connection.  That  principle 
applies  to  cases  where  the  concealment  of  a  fact  is  likely  to  injure 
the  parties  from  whom  the  fact  is  concealed,  or  other  parties  equally 
interested.  It  seemed  to  me  a  common-sense  proposition  that  the  with- 
holding of  facts  in  this  case  would  not  injure  any  Senator,  but  would 
enable  the  Senate  to  consider  the  bill  on  its  merits,  and  that  the  ques- 


58  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

tion  as  to  whether  or  not  I  had  an  agreement  for  a  fee,  or  had  been 
promised  a  lee,  was  not  a  question  for  the  United  States  Senate  to  con- 
sider. Under  these  peculiar  circumstances  it  seemed  to  me  at  that 
juncture  that  if  the  facts  of  the  contract  had  been  exposed  the  measure 
could  not  have  had  an  impartial  consideration  by  the  Senate,  and  I 
desired  to  avoid  anything  calculated  to  cast  reproach  upon  the  people 
whom  I  represented  (the  church).  I  thought  it  was  better,  entirely 
proper  and  right  within  my  prerogative  as  the.ir  representative,  to  keep 
from  the  public  about  Washington  and  everybody  else  all  knowledge  of 
my  arrangements  with  the  book  committee. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  Messrs.  Barbee  and  Smith  sympathize  with 
you  in  that  purpose? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  said  to  the  book  committee,  as  I  have  previously 
stated  to  your  committee,  u  If  you  are  going  to  publish  to  the  world 
that  Stahlman  is  getting  a  fee  of  35  per  cent,  I  would  not  go  to  Wash- 
ington and  spend  a  month  endeavoring  to  secure  the  payment  of  your 
claim."  I  knew  the  elements  about  Washington — elements  which  would 
have  hounded  a  man  to  death  unless  they  got  a  portion  of  his  fee. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Senator 
Bate? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  some  years  back,  and  I  told  him  the  truth  then ; 
that  was  probably  six  or  seven  years  ago,  but  I  had  no  agreement  then 
about  a  fee.  I  may  then  have  told  the  chairman  of  this  committee  the 
same  thing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  recollect  having  discussed  the  question  with 
you  at  all.  I  never  have  had  any  talk  with  you  about  the  fee. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  in  relation  to  the 
subject  with  Senator  Bate  a  short  time  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  bill! 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  say  to  you  that  while  I  respect  Senator  Bate  and 
have  been  on  fairly  good  terms  with  him,  my  relations  with  the  dis- 
tinguished Senator  were  not  such  as  to  cause  me  to  talk  much  with  him. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  That  is  hardly  a  fair  answer  to  my  question. 
Did  you  not  have  a  conversation  with  Senator  Bate  prior  to  the  passage 
of  this  bill  respecting  this  fee? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  will  answer  that  in  a  very  positive  way  after  I  have 
made  a  statement,  which  I  think  is  due  to  myself  in  connection  with  it. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Answer  the  question  first  and  make  any 
explanation  you  may  desire  afterwards. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  If  that  pleases  the  Senator,  I  will  do  so.  I  have  no 
recollection  on  earth  of  having  had  any  conversation  with  Senator 
Bate  on  the  question  of  compensation  after  I  had  been  regularly 
employed  by  the  book  committee.  It  is  possible  I  may  have  had.  I 
was  just  as  guarded  with  him  as  I  was  with  the  other  Senators,  to  the 
extent  that  I  did  not  intend  to  tell  him  a  falsehood.  Yet  he  might  from 
this  talk  have  felt  justified  in  assuming  that  I  had  no  contract. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Senator 
Turley  about  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  until  after  the  bill  was  passed. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  that  conversation  have  reference  to  the  fee 
in  any  way? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  did. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  tell  him  that  there  was  no  fee  coming 
to  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  led  him  to  believe  that  the  money  was  all  going  to 
the  treasury.  I  said,  "My  dear  sir,  I  have  just  come  to  ask  you  to  go 
to  the  Treasury  Department  to  get  the  voucher  for  these  book  agents. 


METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  59 

That  money  is  all  going  into  the  treasury,  and  they  may  do  what  they 
like  with  it  after  they  get  it." 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  tell  him  that  any  part  of  it  was  coming 
to  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  did  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  lead  him  to  believe  that  there  was 
nothing  coming  to  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  object  to  the  question,  in  that  form. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  say  that  you  misled  the  Senator  in  the 
matter  of  your  fee  because  you  were  afraid  if  the  truth  were  known  it 
would  injure  the  prospect  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  did  not  say  that  I  misled  Senators.  I  said  that 
from  the  conversations  I  had  with  them  they  had  a  right  to  assume 
that  there  was  no  fee ;  but  what  I  did  say  was  the  truth.  I  felt  that 
if  they  knew  all  the  facts  in  connection  with  it  the  bill  could  not  be 
considered  on  its  merits. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Come  to  the  conversation  which  you  had  with 
Senator  Turley  subsequently  to  the  passage  of  the  bill.  If  I  correctly 
understand  what  you  said,  you  led  him  to  infer  that  the  entire  amount 
of  $288,000  was  going  to  the  church. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  doubt  that  he  was  under  that  impression. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Why  did  you  mislead  him? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  did  not  mislead  him ;  there  was  no  reason  why  I 
should. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Why  did  you  not  tell  him  the  truth  frankly? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Because  it  was  my  business,  not  his. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Were  you  talking  about  the  question  of  com- 
pensation? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  He  brought  it  up.  He  said  there  were  some  very 
broad  statements  in  regard  to  attorney's  fees.  I  said  that  I  had  not 
read  the  Congressional  Kecord,  and  that  I  had  not  heard  the  report. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  he  ask  you  whether  the  report  was  true 
or  false? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  He  asked  me  in  regard  to  it,  and  I  said,  "All  I  can 
tell  you  is,  the  money  is  all  going  to  the  church." 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Then  you  misrepresented  the  matter  to  Senator 
Turley? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Senator  Turley  had  a  right  to  assume  that  there 
were  no  attorney's  fees  to  me.  1  kept  the  fact  from  him  because  I  did 
not  think  it  was  any  of  his  business. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  said  something  about  employing  some 
assistants  here. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  I  employed  Mr.  Sam  Donalson,  of  Tennessee. 
He  is  a  native  of  Nashville,  and  was  Doorkeeper  of  the  House  for  a 
long  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  he  occupying  any  public  position  then? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir.  He  acts  in  the  capacity  of  agent  or 
attorney  for  people  having  matters  pending  before  Congress. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  arrangements  with  church  people 
for  any  drawback  or  sharing  of  profits  with  you?  I  mean  by  church 
people  members  of  the  book  committee  or  book  agents. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Look  here,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  had  before  you 
this  morning  a  man  as  guileless  as  a  babe. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Never  mind  about  that. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  (continuing).  You  had  before  you  this  morning  two 
men  as  guileless  as  children.  I  understand  that  rumors  have  been 


60  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

floating  around  about  them.  I  declare  to  you  as  a  man,  before  high 
heaven,  and  I  hope  that  heaven  will  strike  me  dead  if  I  vary  from  the 
truth,  that  they  did  not  get  one  farthing,  and  did  not  have  any  hope 
of  getting  one  farthing.  I  refer  to  Barbee  and  Smith  and  to  the  book 
committee  and  to  everybody  connected  with  the  church.  There  is  a 
class  of  people  roaming  about  who  claim  to  have  got  the  second  bless- 
ing, who  are  trying  to  belittle  and  blacken  the  church  and  prominent 
men  in  it  if  they  can.  There  is  no  man  much  meaner  than  an  assassin 
of  character. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  want  to  go  into  that.  Confine  yourself 
to  the  questions.  In  your  interest  and  in  the  interest  of  everybody 
we  ought  to  ask  this  question.  I  do  not  want  to  ask  you  how  you  paid 
out  this  money,  if  you  paid  it  out  properly,  but  to  ask  you  whether 
any  portion  of  it  went  to  any  Member  of  Congress  or  any  Senator? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  one  dollar. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  .there  any  money  paid  by  you  at  any  time  in 
the  furtherance  of  this  claim  to  that  class  of  men  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  at  all;  nor  have  I  paid  any  money  to  any  attor- 
neys with  the  remotest  belief  of  its  reaching  any  Member  of  Congress 
or  Senator. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  money  which  you  have  paid  to  attorneys  has 
been  legitimate  attorneys'  fees,  has  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Perfectly.  The  only  way  on  earth  that  I  could  suc- 
ceed in  getting  this  bill  through  was  to  keep  the  hordes  of  vultures  who 
are  hanging  around  this  Capitol  from  knowing  that  I  had  any  agreement 
for  a  fee  in  connection  with  it.  That  is  the  truth.  I  repeat  again,  not 
one  nickel,  not  one  farthing,  not  one  dollar  went  in  that  way;  and,  if 
the  chairman  wants  it  (although  it  is  my  private  business),  I  will  show 
him  where  every  dollar  of  that  money  went.  I  used  the  money  to  pay 
my  debts,  and  I  have  not  paid  them  all  yet. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know  that  we  want  that.  I  will  consult 
the  committee. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  can  account  for  every  farthing  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  want  to  go  into  your  private  affairs;  but 
you  can  see  that  the  question  is  not  put  simply  out  of  impertinence, 
but  in  the  interest  of  a  fair  investigation. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  am  ready  to  develop  everything. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  know  what  is  sometimes  said  outside,  and  I 
thought  it  well  to  give  you  an  opportunity  of  showing  that  there  is  no 
truth  in  such  rumors. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  is  due  to  the  official  members  of  the  church  and  to 
Senators  and  Representatives  in  Congress  that  the  statements  made 
by  you  should  be  put  upon  the  record. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes;  and  I  am  willing  to  go  into  my  private  busi- 
ness, if  need  be,  to  establish  the  truth  of  what  I  say. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  correspondence  passed  between  you  and  the 
book  agents  between  the  Saturday  and  Tuesday,  about  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  bill — between  the  time  I  wrote  the  letter  to  which  atten- 
tion has  been  called  and  the  telegrams  relating  to  the  same  subject? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  had  a  regular  correspondence  with  those  people 
about  the  situation ;  necessarily  and  naturally.  There  was  scarcely  a 
thing  I  went  into  about  which  I  did  not  communicate  with  them. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  am  speaking  with  reference  to  these  dates.  My 
letter  was  written  on  the  5th  of  March.  That  was  Saturday;  and  on 
Tuesday  the  bill  passed.  You  know  the  telegram  which  1  received  in 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  til 

response,  and  you  know  the  telegram  which  Senator  Bate  sent,  and  the 
response  received. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  I  am  after  is  the  correspondence  between  you 
and  the  book  agents  about  that  time. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  My  recollection  is  that  I  communicated  with  the 
book  agents  either  that  day,  the  day  before,  or  the  day  after.  I  said  to 
them :  "  The  story  that  was  started  in  the  House  three  weeks  before 
the  passage  of  the  bill  has  been  revived  in  the  Senate.  It  is  said  that 
I  am  to  get  40  per  cent,  and  that  I  have  a  contract  with  you  for  the 
money.  You  know  that  that  is  not  so.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  any 
inquiry  is  made  about  it,  you  ought  to  deny  that.  You  can  afford  to 
deny  that.  And,  if  you  want  to,  you  can  refer  anybody  making  inquiry 
to  me,  and  I  will  talk  to  them."  I  did  not  mean  by  that  to  have  them 
understand  that  I  should  state  everything  in  connection  with  it.  If 
any  Senator  called  upon  me,  I  stated  substantially  what  I  had  said  to 
Senator  Bate  and  others,  and  I  was  conscientious  in  regard  to  it.  I  did 
not  think  it  was  the  business  of  that  Senator,  or  of  any  Senator.  I 
withheld  the  knowledge  of  the  arrangement  from  my  most  intimate 
friend,  for  the  reasons  which  I  have  already  stated.  I  stated  no  untruth. 
Of  course  I  kept  back  some  of  the  facts,  just  as  a  man  pleading  before 
a  court  keeps  back  facts.  If  he  were  inquired  of  as  to  what  his  fee 
was,  he  would  say,  "That  is  not  the  question  here;  the  question  is 
whether  my  client  is  entitled  to  a  verdict."  You  all  know  that  claims 
before  Congress  are  nearly  all  promoted  by  claim  agents.  Why,  bless 
your  souls,  of  course  they  are.  Now,  in  this  case  the  claimants  hap- 
pened to  be  a  church,  and  the  church  is  to  be  punished  because  it 
employed  an  agent,  having  failed  after  thirty  years  to  get  anything 
done  without  an  agent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  complaint  is  not  that  the  church  employed  an 
agent,  but  that  having  employed  an  agent  it  denied  that  there  was  an 
agent. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Well,  then,  make  me  the  martyr.  I  made  the  denial. 
Peter  denied  his  Lord  three  times.  He  told  a  story.  I  do  not  claim 
to  be  better  than  Peter.  If  Peter  was  forgiven,  and  Peter  is  the  rock 
upon  which  the  church  was  founded,  Stahlman  can  be  forgiven  for  the 
crime  he  has  committed,  if  crime  it  be. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  you  got  the  telegrams  which  passed  between 
you  and  the  agents  T 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  I  have.  I  will  produce  them  with  pleasure. 
I  think  I  have  brought  with  me  nearly  everything  in  connection  with 
the  case.  I  have  a  box  nearly  as  large  as  a  No.  1  dry-goods  case, 
which  is  full  of  papers.  If  it  was  dishonorable  to  keep  from  Senators 
and  others  a  knowledge  of  my  fee  I  am  dishonored;  but  I  do  not  view 
it  from  that  standpoint. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  Something  has  been  said  about  your  borrow- 
ing money  from  the  book  committee.  Did  that  have  anything  to  do 
with  this  contingent  feet 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  My  agreement  was  that  I  should  bear  all  the  expenses 
in  every  conceivable  way.  I  even  paid  the  publishing  house  for  the 
circulars  which  they  printed.  I  paid  for  every  postage  stamp,  I  paid 
my  secretary,  I  paid  my  hotel  bills  here,  and  the  bills  of  my  assistants; 
in  fact,  I  paid  everything  in  connection  with  the  claim.  It  so  happened 
that  on  one  or  two  occasions  I  wanted  money.  I  have  a  large  family 
and  have  large  expenses.  I  was  here  in  Washington  and  was  not  in  a 
position  to  go  home  and  make  negotiations  for  money.  I  had  said  to 
S.  Rep.  1416 5 


62  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

tbe  book  committee  that  it  might  be  necessary  for  me  to  ask  them  to 
help  me.  I  said, "  I  have  some  property  which  I  can  mortgage  to  you, 
and  if  I  want  a  couple  of  thousand  dollars,  can  you  let  me  have  it?" 
The  committee  referred  the  matter  to  a  subcommittee  who  reported  that 
on  property  of  mine,  real  estate,  worth  $5,000 1  could  get  $1,000.  I  got 
that.  On  another  occasion,  when  I  was  troubled  very  seriously  for  a 
thousand  dollars,  I  asked  the  book  committee  if  they  would  not  let  me 
have  it,  and  the  book  committee  said  they  would,  if  I  could  secure  them. 
I  gave  them  the  note  of  the  Banner  Publishing  Company  for  a  thousand 
dollars  at  ninety  days.  That  note  was  paid  when  it  fell  due.  There  was 
never  a  better  note  for  that  sum  of  money  made  in  the  United  States. 
It  was  as  good  as  gold.  The  Nashville  Banner  is  the  cleanest  paper  in 
the  State,  has  the  largest  circulation  of  any  newspaper  in  the  State, 
and  is  the  most  successful  newspaper  in  the  State,  and  its  note  for  a 
thousand  or  ten  thousand  dollars  is  as  good  as  any  note  that  can  be 
given. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Did  you  pay  the  entire  expenses,  including  the  expenses 
of  the  book  agents,  when  they  came  up  here  to  look  after  the  bill  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  did. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  regarded  that  as  a  part  of  your  contract? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Something  was  said  about  $500  being  given 
by  you  for  some  missions. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Had  that  anything  to  do  with  this  contract? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  a  blessed  thing.  I  am  a  pretty  large  contrib- 
utor all  the  time.  I  am  a  good  paying  brother. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  are  a  pretty  good  receiving  brother,  too,  I 
think. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man  who  could 
command  a  salary  of  $20,000  a  year  would  have  undertaken  to  collect 
this  claim  on  a  contingent  fee  of  35  per  cent,  and  pay  all  of  his 
expenses,  including  the  expenses  of  those  who  assisted  him. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  It  is  a  possible  thing  that  the  fee  was  reason- 
able and  right;  but  that  is  not  the  main  question.  The  question  is 
whether  the  Senate  was  misled  by  you  and  Barbee  and  Smith. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  that  the  real  question  is  whether  or  not  that 
claim  was  just  or  unjust.  That  is  the  question,  I  think.  I  do  not  think 
the  Senate  had  anything  to  do  with  the  employment  of  an  attorney. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  Senate  would  have  been  pretty  sure  either  to 
limit  the  attorney's  fee  or  to  submit  its  amount  to  somebody. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  These  people  had  agreements  with  other  attorneys 
before  I  took  it  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Many  of  us  who  voted  for  the  bill  did  not  think  that 
it  was  a  claim  at  all  against  the  Government,  but  we  felt  that  we  were 
doing  a  thing  which  we  felt  we  could  afford  to  do  for  a  charitable  insti- 
tution. It  was  stated  by  some  members  of  the  committee  when  we 
voted  to  report  the  bill  that  they  did  not  vote  for  the  report  on  the 
ground  that  the  claim  was  a  legal  one  at  all,  but  that  inasmuch  as  we 
had  adopted  the  rule  of  paying  such  claims  in  the  case  of  colleges  and 
schools  we  would  apply  the  rule  in  this  case  to  the  book  concern,  which 
we  considered  (especially  those  of  us  who  were  brought  up  in  the  Meth- 
odist Church)  to  be  a  charity,  inasmuch  as  the  proceeds  went  to  the 
support  of  supernumerary  ministers. 

Senator  PASCO.  So  far  as  I  am  personally  concerned,  I  agreed  to  the 
report  because  I  believed  in  the  justice  of  the  claim,  but  I  referred  also 
to  a  class  of  Senators  who  would  support  it  on  other  grounds,  and  we 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  63 

were  very  glad  to  get  the  support  of  those  Senators.  Without  that 
support  it  would  have  been  a  difficult  matter  to  pass  the  bill.  They 
were  influential  and  were  strong  and  positive  in  their  views,  and  we 
hailed  the  support  which  they  gave  us. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  agree  to  that.  The  precedent  had  been  established 
in  a  number  of  cases  less  meritorious  than  this  one.  Precedent  makes 
law,  and  law  seemed  to  establish  the  legality  of  this  claim  beyond 
question,  even  in  the  minds  of  those  who  doubted  that  there  was  any 
law  in  its  favor. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know  that  I  would  have  voted  against  the 
claim,  but  I  might  have  voted  for  some  revision  of  the  fee,  inasmuch  as 
1  did  not  regard  it  as  a  legal  claim,  but  a  gratuity;  and  I  voted  to  report 
the  bill  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  it  was  a  gratuity  and  not 
a  legal  claim.  I  stood  upon  the  report  made  twenty  years  ago  as  a  legal 
proposition  that  the  church  had  no  legal  claim. 

STATEMENT  OF  REV.  COLLINS  DENNY. 

Mr.  Denny  said : 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  I  should  be  false  to  my  feelings  if  I  did  not 
say  before  these  Senators  that  I  have  been  sitting  here  these  hours  with 
an  incubus  upon  me  greater  than  I  have  ever  borne.  I  am  the  third 
generation  of  my  family  in  the  Methodist  ministry,  and,  outside  of  my 
own  wife  and  children,  the  honor  of  that  church  is  to  me  more  than  all 
else  in  this  world.  I  had  heard  nothing  whatever  of  the  supposition 
that  there  was  any  bribery  or  corruption  or  fraud  in  connection  with 
this  claim.  My  lite  is  that  of  a  recluse  almost  wholly.  Besides  being 
a  Methodist  minister,  my  work  is  that  of  a  professor  in  Vanderbilt 
University.  For  the  past  four  years  I  have  been  a  member  of  the  book 
committee,  and,  at  its  last  meeting,  I  was  elected  its  chairman.  Coming 
here  and  hearing  what  I  have  heard,  and  reading  what  I  have  read,  I 
feel  that  I  would  infinitely  prefer  that  the  M.  E.  Church  South  had  never 
had  one  dollar's  worth  of  interest  in  anything  which  the  United  States 
Government  has  ever  done.  You  Senators  hold  in  your  hands  to  day, 
by  the  report  which  you  shall  make,  the  happiness  of  a  majority  of  a 
million  and  a  half  members,  and  if  it  does  not  go  forth  from  you  that 
this  money  (so  far  as  the  church  is  concerned)  has  been  gotten  with 
clean  hands,  there  are  thousands  of  us  who  would  die  before  we  would 
touch  a  dollar  of  it.  Most  of  our  members  are  women  and  children ; 
they  do  not  understand  these  close  distinctions,  and  in  behalf  of  the 
church  (if  it  meets  with  your  approbation)  I  shall  be  glad  to  submit  a 
statement  which  I  have  prepared  and  to  answer  any  questions  which 
the  committee  may  ask  me.  There  is  nothing  that  I  have  to  conceal, 
so  far  as  the  church  is  concerned.  I  do  feel  for  her  honor,  and  I  feel 
that  that  has  been  attacked  to  some  extent  by  the  order  for  this 
investigation.  After  I  have  read  my  statement,  I  hope  that  you  will 
ask  me  the  most  pointed  and  searching  questions  that  can  occur  to  you. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  1  do  not  know  what  you  know  about  this  matter. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  can  tell  in  a  very  short  time. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  There  is  no  division  of  feeling  in  the  Senate,  so 
far  as  I  am  aware,  as  to  the  attitude  of  the  church.  So  far  as  the 
church  is  concerned  there  is  no  stigma,  stain,  or  reproach  upon  it.  If 
there  has  been  any  wrongdoing,  it  has  been  on  the  part  of  the  agents 
of  the  church  who  have  betrayed  their  trust. 


64  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Mr.  DENNY.  One  Senator,  speaking  in  the  Senate,  said  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  had  dragged  its  slime  through  the 
United  States  Senate. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  recall  any  such  expression. 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  is  in  the  Congressional  Record. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  If  such  a  statement  was  made,  it  did  not  reflect 
the  general  sentiment  of  the  Senate. 

Senator  STEWART.  How  would  it  affect  the  church  in  any  way>  in 
your  estimation,  if  this  committee  should  report  that  the  statements 
made  by  Senator  Bate  and  Senator  Pasco  were  made  in  the  most  abso- 
lute  good  faith,  and  that  they  had  been  misled  by  statements  of  the 
book  agents? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  do  not  think  there  is  the  slightest  supposition  on  the 
part  of  any  of  our  subcommittee  that  Senator  Bate  or  Senator  Pasco, 
or  any  other  Senator  who  has  spoken  upon  the  question,  did  not  speak 
in  absolutely  good  faith.  Our  book  committee,  to  which  the  book 
agents  are  responsible  under  the  law  of  the  church,  has  made  an  inves- 
tigation of  the  whole  case,  so  far  as  the  book  agents  are  concerned; 
and,  not  knowing  what  would  become  of  this  resolution,  we  appointed 
a  subcommittee  to  prepare  a  statement  for  issue  to  the  church  and  to 
the  public  in  relation  to  it.  As  soon  as  our  attention  was  called  to  the 
fact  of  the  likelihood  of  the  passage  of  this  resolution,  we  thought  it 
better  and  more  courteous  to  the  Senate  committee  to  withhold  the 
statement  which  we  had  prepared.  I  have  it  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  the  statement  which  you  intended  to  publish  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  is  not  in  the  exact  form,  but  the  substance  of  it  is  the 
same. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  what  direction  does  it  go— to  blame  the  com- 
mitee? 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  goes  to  the  point  of  stating  very  briefly  the  history 
of  the  book  committee's  effort  to  collect  the  claim  against  the  Govern- 
ment, the  correspondence  on  the  subject,  the  action  of  the  book  agents, 
and  the  action  of  the  church  in  relation  to  the  statements  made  by  her 
own  agents. 

Senator  PASCO.  Those  book  agents  are,  as  I  understand,  under  the 
direction  of  the  book  committee. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes;  and  under  the  law  we  can  displace  them  by  a 
motion. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  these  gentlemen,  Barbee  and  Smith,  after  the 
two  Houses  had  voted  on  this  bill,  go  before  the  book  committee  and 
make  a  full,  free,  and  frank  statement  of  all  the  circumstances  connected 
with  the  matter  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Not  until  the  annual  meeting  on  the  21st  of  April  last, 
when  I  first  read  the  Congressional  Record  on  the  subject. 

Senator  PASCO.  They  came  in  with  a  presentation  of  their  formal 
report f  Is  that  what  you  refer  to? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  that  is  the  first  statement  you  can  recall  by 
them  relating  to  this  matter? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  do  not  recollect  that.  This  is  the  report  they  made  to 
the  general  conference,  and  it  has  to  have  the  approval  of  the  book 
committee. 

Senator  PASOO.  The  $100,800  had  then  been  paid  out? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes.  On  the  14th  of  March,  I  think,  we  were  called 
together  to  draw  up  such  papers  as  we  understood  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  would  require  in  order  to  collect  the  money — that  is,  to 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  65 

put  in  our  charter  and  certificate  that  the  book  committee  had  author- 
ity to  act,  and  to  send  up  a  copy  of  the  discipline  containing  the  law 
of  the  church.  Then  the  money  was  collected,  and  the  first  meeting 
after  that,  so  far  as  I  can  now  recollect,  was  the  quadrennial  meeting, 
on  the  21st  of  April,  before  the  general  conference  was  held.  At  that 
meeting  the  Congressional  Eecord  of  March  8th  was  brought  to  the 
committee,  and  when  I  read  that  statements  had  been  made  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate  in  regard  to  the  claim  I  called  for  the  reading  of 
the  report  in  the  Congressional  Record.  That  was  the  first  intimation 
that  1  had  of  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  money  had  then  already  been  paid  to  Stahltnan? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  was  paid  without  any  special  authority  from  the 
book  committee? 

Mr.  DENNY.  No.  The  committee  had  met.  There  are  five  members 
of  the  committee  residing  at  Nashville,  and  we  met  that  day  to  arrange 
the  papers. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  subsequently  the  money  reached  Nashville? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  the  book  agents  come  in  and  ask  the  book  com- 
mittee for  authority  to  pay  the  money  to  Stahlman,  or  did  they  deal 
directly  with  Stahlman  without  any  conference  with  the  book  com- 
mittee? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Authority  had  been  granted  to  the  book  agents  by  the 
book  committee  to  pay  this  35  per  cent  under  the  contract  with  Stahl- 
man. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  at  that  time  none  of  the  circumstances  which 
had  occurred  in  the  Senate  had  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
book  committee? 

Mr.  DENNY.  No,  sir;  none  of  us  knew  of  them. 

Senator  PASCO.  They  were  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  book 
com  mittee — when  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  On  the  21st  of  April. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  was  when  you  were  fixing  up  your  business 
prior  to  going  on  to  Baltimore? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes;  we  were -preparing  the  quadrennial  report. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  take  any  action,  after  reading  this  debate 
in  the  Senate,  approving  or  disapproving  the  course  of  the  book  agents  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes.  We  passed  a  resolution  setting  forth  the  contract 
and  instructions  to  Mr.  Stahlman.  The  instructions  were  that  his 
course  should  be  such  as  to  bring  no  reproach  upon  the  church;  but 
that  was  no  part  of  the  written  contract.  I  had  supposed  it  was  until 
I  saw  the  contract  about  three  weeks  ago.  If  it  came  to  the  question 
of  compromising  the  church  in  collecting  the  money,  he  had  positive 
instructions  that  the  money  was  not  to  be  collected.  The  church  was 
to  be  kept  from  all  contamination  whatever.  That  was  stated  in  the 
resolution,  and  also  that,  as  statements  had  been  made  in  the  Senate 
which  did  not  accord  with  the  facts,  the  book  agents  were  instructed 
to  prepare  a  statement  to  be  submitted  to  the  general  conference,  so 
that  the  general  conference  might  be  in  possession  of  the  whole  facts 
of  the  case. 

Senator  PASCO.  Have  you  got  a  copy  of  the  resolution? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  set  forth  in  this  statement  which  has  been 
handed  to  me  by  Dr.  Denny,  and  which  I  propose  to  read  to-night  and 
will  inform  you  to-morrow  whether  it  will  be  proper  to  be  admitted. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow. 


66  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  29, 1898. 

The  committee  met.  Present,  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Fairbanks, 
Stewart,  Pasco,  and  Clay. 

TESTIMONY  OF  REV.  J.  D.  BAEBEE— Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  omitted  to  ask  you  yesterday  whether,  when  you 
made  this  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlmau,  or  when  yoii  executed  it  for  the 
book  committee,  you  had  any  arrangement  by  which  you  were  to  keep 
secret  the  amount  of  the  consideration. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Well,  I  do  not  know.  There  was  a  distinct  under- 
standing, and  it  was  so  expressed,  that  we  would  keep  that  quietly 
between  ourselves. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean — expressed  in  the  contract? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  know  that  there  was  any  formal  definite 
expression  in  the  contract  to  the  effect  that  we  should  keep  it  secret; 
but  it  was  mentioned,  of  course,  and  it  was  understood  and  agreed 
upon  that  that  was  a  matter  between  the  book  agents  and  the  book 
committee  and  Mr.  IStahlman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  There  was  no  publication  of  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  None  whatever. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  did  not  intend  that  there  should  be? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir;  that  is,  as  to  the  amount. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  After  you  made  this  contract  was  it  reported  to  any 
of  the  church  authorities?  Did  you  report  it  to  the  conference  or  to 
anybody? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Not  in  any  particular  form.  I  do  not  recollect  whether 
I  did.  I  may  have  announced  it  on  conference  floors  or  elsewhere  that 
Mr.  Stahlman  was  our  employed  attorney  or  agent,  or  whatever  you 
choose  to  call  him — that  he  was  to  represent  us  in  the  matter.  It  was 
never  concealed  that  we  had  employed  him  and  that  he  was  writing  to 
us,  but  the  amount  that  we  were  to  give  him  was  a  matter  between 
ourselves. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  the  fact  that  you  were  to  give  him  pecuniary 
compensation  concealed?  Was  anything  said  about  that? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  anything  was  said  about  it. 
I  had  this  consciousness,  however,  in  my  mind,  that  we  were  very  care- 
fully to  keep  that  question  entirely  out  of  view. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  mean  as  to  the  amount? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes;  as  to  the  amount  and  as  to  the  fact  that  there 
was  to  be  any  compensation  at  all.  We  had  our  reasons  for  it,  and  I 
will  state  them  if  you  desire. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  entitled  to  the  statement,  if  you  choose. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  reason  was  this :  Mr.  Stahlman  said  to  us,  "  If.  it 
is  known  that!  am  receiving  a  compensation,  an  appreciable  one,  there 
are  cormorants  hanging  around  the  halls  of  Congress  who  will  under- 
take to  suck  it  all  out  of  me,  and  would  so  embarrass  me  that  I  would 
not  undertake  to  go  to  Washington  at  all  if  it  were  known.  I  would 
rather  never  have  anyone  know  anything  about  it." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  understand  that  he  was  to  assume  the  posi- 
tion of  a  trustee  of  the  church? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not  understand  that  he  was  simply  to  pose  as  the 
trustee  of  the  church;  oh,  no.  I  understood,  and  we  all  understood, 
that  he  was  our  agent,  or  call  it  what  you  please.  I  always  spoke  of 
him  as  an  attorney;  you  may  call  him  agent  or  what  not.  I  always 
HI  >oke  of  him  in  that  light  and  employed  him  to  act  in  that  capacity. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  67 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Gaines,  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  from  Tennessee? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  him  about 
the  fees  to  be  paid  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  None  whatever  that  I  have  any  memory  of  now.  The 
truth  is  that  is  a  subject  I  was  always  careful  to  avoid  discussing. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  Mr.  Gaines 
about  the  case? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes;  in  Washington  a  year  ago.  I  was  attending  con- 
ference at  Staunton  and  I  came  from  that  point  here,  expecting  to  meet 
Mr.  Stahlman.  But  he  said  that  the  session  was  near  its  close  and  that 
he  could  not  do  anything.  I  conversed  with  Mr.  Gaines  and  thanked 
him  for  his  activity  in  the  matter.  The  conversation  took  on  the  general 
topic  of  the  claim  and  our  appreciation  of  the  interest  he  was  taking. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  tell  him  then,  or  at  any  other  time,  that  no 
fees  were  to  be  paid  in  that  case? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  sure  about  that,  Doctor? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  am  as  certain  of  it  as  1  am  that  I  sit  here.  I  am  cer- 
tain that  I  never  told  anyone  on  earth  that  there  were  no  fees  to  be  paid. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  certain  that  you  never  told  that  to  Senator 
Bate? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  am. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Nor  any  other  Senator? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Nor  any  Senator. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  equally  certain,  though,  that  you  did  not 
tell  people  that  you  had  a  contract  of  this  kind?  You  did  not  even 
tell  the  church  authorities  what  the  contract  was? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Oh,  no;  no  one  beyond  the  book  committee.  I  may 
occasionally  have  told  a  bishop,  but  I  am  not  so  sure  about  that.  The 
book  committee  originally  made  the  trade,  but  beyond  that  we  did  not 
discuss  the  question. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  stated  that  you  did  not  make  the  trade. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No ;  we  drew  up  and  signed  the  formal  contract. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  make  the  preliminary  contract  with  Stahl- 
man before  the  book  committee  authorized  the  final  contract  with  him  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  When  my  attention  was  called  to  Mr.  Stahlman  as 
available  for  us,  and  when  I  learned  how  expert  he  was  in  such  things, 
I  immediately  took  to  it,  had  an  interview  with  him,  and  asked  him  to 
see  the  book  committee.  He  came  before  them.  He  told  me  that  he 
would  charge  50  per  cent,  but  when  he  went  before  the  book  committee 
they  brought  him  down  to  35  per  cent. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  you  present  with  the  book  committee  at  the 
time? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  was. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  were  not  a  member  of  that  committee? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No.  sir ;  and  have  no  voice  in  it.  I  do  have  a  voice  in 
the  sense  of  speaking,  but  not  in  the  sense  of  voting. 

Senator  CLAY.  You  speak  of  Mr.  Stahlman  being  expert — what  do 
you  mean? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  he  has  always  been  remarkably  successful  in 
managing  great  affairs  in  legislative  bodies. 

Senator  CLAY.  What  was  his  business — looking  after  legislative 
bodies? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Oh,  no;  he  has  been  a  railroad  man. 


68  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  CLAY.  You  did  not  expect  any  improper  means  to  be  used 
by  him? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  made  it  a  condition  that  none  should  be  used.  He 
was  charged  by  the  committee  and  by  all  of  us  that  we  would  rather 
lose  the  whole  amount  than  that  anything  questionable  should  be  done 
in  order  to  get  it. 

Senator  CLAY.  What  did  you  expect  him  to  do  here  in  getting  the 
claim  allowed? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  expected  him  to  do  just  what  he  did  in  the  main 
and  in  particular — stir  up  the  whole  land  to  write  to  Congressmen,  to 
talk  with  Congressmen,  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  Con- 
gressmen, to  impress  them  with  the  importance  of  the  thing,  and  then 
to  leave  the  issue  in  the  hands  of  this  honorable  national  legislature. 
That  is  what  I  expected  him  to  do,  and  I  think  I  never  knew  a  man 
who  did  more  writing  than  he  did  in  this  case.  We  printed  in  the 
publishing  house  a  large  mass  of  literature  which  he  wrote,  and  he 
paid  for  the  printing.  There  were  a  great  many  autograph  letters  sent 
out  by  him,  besides  a  great  many  telegrams. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  These  were  sent  out  by  the  book  agents  and  the 
book  committee? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  book  committee  had  nothing  to  do  with  sending 
them  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  These  circulars  are  all  signed  by  the  book  com- 
mittee or  the  book  agents  ?. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Except  such  as  Stahlman  signed  himself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  he  sign  any? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  have  the  impression  that  he  did  sign  some. 

Senator  CLAY.  Did  he  not  write  them  and  send  them  to  you  to  be 
sent  out? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Sometimes  he  did. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  do  not  think  that  any  of  them  were  signed  by 
Stahlman  himself. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  would  not  be  positive  about  that. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  After  this  contract  was  made  by  Stahlman, 
how  long  was  it  before  you  reported  it  to  conference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  contract  was  made  in  July.  I  do  not  recollect 
what  was  the  date  of  the  General  Conference. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  The  contract  was  made  in  July,  1895? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  had  a  General  Conference  in  May,  1898,  the  present 
year.  We  had  not  any  from  1894  to  1898. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  In  making  up  matters  to  report  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence, was  it  the  custom  to  make  those  reports  to  the  annual  conference 
or  to  the  General  Conference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  To  both.  We  make  only  exhibits  to  the  annual  con- 
ference. The  quadrennial  report,  covering  all  essential  details,  is  made 
to  the  General  Conference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  To  which  conference  do  you  make  your  annual 
reports;  is  it  to  the  Nashville  Conference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  thought  that  the  chairman  was  a  Methodist  and 
would  understand. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  so  many  annual  conferences. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  The  same  report  goes  to  each  one  of  them.  I  have 
heard  my  report  read  twenty  times  in  one  season  of  the  conference. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Does  the  conference  at  Nashville,  where  the  book 
concern  is  located,  have  any  control  over  the  book  concern  greater 
than  any  other  conference  has? 


METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  69 

Mr.  BARBEE.  None  whatever. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  book  concern  is  really  under  the  control  of  the 
General  Conference? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Be  a  little  specific  as  to  the  character  of 
the  business  which  you  report  to  the  annual  conference. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  use  simply  an  exhibit  of  the  business  of  the  year. 
We  are  in  the  habit,  however,  preliminary  to  that,  of  giving  a  state- 
ment of  the  value  of  the  plant,  the  buildings,  machinery,  etc.,  so  as  to 
give  an  idea  of  what  it  is  worth. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  one  of  those  reports  with  you? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  have  not  any  of  the  annual  reports  with  me;  I  will 
send  you  one  if  desired.  The  last  quadrennial  report  is  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  any  of  these  reports  to  the  annual  conference  do 
you  make  any  reference  to  this  claim? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  make  any  reference  to  Mr.  Stahlman's  con- 
nection with  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  the  annual  reports  mention 
his  name  or  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  state  whether  you  had  engaged  anyone 
since  the  contract  was  made? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes.  I  stated  that  in  my  address  which  is  on  file  in 
the  conference.  I  do  not  recollect  distinctly  what  we  wrote  in  the 
report. 

1  he  CHAIRMAN.  I  am  speaking  of  the  report. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  about  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  look  up  one  of  those  reports  and  send  it 
to  us? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  What  amount  of  money  had  been  previously 
paid  to  agents  or  attorneys  for  looking  after  this  claim  in  Congress? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all  shown  in  the  statement  of  Dr.  Denny, 
which  I  have  here. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes ;  it  is  all  set  out  there  exactly. 

The  CHAIRMAN  (to  Mr.  Hawkins).  I  think  you  had  better  not  go 
into  that.  Dr.  Barbee  may  not  have  the  exact  figures,  and  they  are 
here  in  this  statement  already. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  25, 1898. 
STATEMENT  OF  REV.  COLLINS  DENNY— Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  appear  here  on  behalf  of  the  book  committee? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes ;  three  of  us  are  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Of  which  you  are  the  chairman? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Who  are  here  besides  yourself? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Colonel  Beeves  and  Dr.  Mason. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  all  members  of  the  book  committee,  are  you  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  all  ministers? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Colonel  Reeves  is  a  layman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  is  a  lawyer,  is  he? 

Mr.  DENNY.  He  is. 


70  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  desire  to  present  to  the  committee  this  state- 
ment which  you  left  here  yesterday? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes,  sir;  by  all  rneaus  I  wish  to  read  it  to  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Can  you  not  discuss  the  salient  points  of  it  without 
reading  it,  and  let  the  report  go  in?  I  see  nothing  objectionable  in  it, 
although  I  see  some  things  that  I  am  sorry  to  see  in  it.  At  the  same 
time  you  have  a  right  to  present  them  if  you  think  it  better. 

Dr.  MASON.  That  statement  can  be  read  in  thirty  minutes,  and  I 
doubt  if  Dr.  Denny  can  go  over  the  same  ground  in  that  time. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  shall  read  the  statement  when  we  come  to  make 
up  our  judgment  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  DENNY.  You  have  in  your  hands  the  interest  of  a  church  which 
is  now  in  a  greatly  troubled  condition. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think  that  the  simple  reading  of  this  state- 
ment will  help  the  church,  but  you  will  be  allowed  to  put  it  in  the 
record,  if  you  desire.  I  wish  to  ask  you  a  question  or  two  about  this 
report.  State  the  character  of  the  examination  which  your  committee 
made  in  the  General  Conference. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  was  not  a  member  of  the  committee  which  had  that 
in  charge.  Colonel  Beeves  was  a  member  of  that  conference,  and  for 
that  reason  he  was  appointed  on  this  committee  to  come  here.  I  was 
chairman  of  the  committee  which  made  the  investigation  in  Nashville 
last  week. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  want  to  say  anything  which  is  not  in  this 
prepared  statement! 

Mr.  DENNY.  Nothing  that  occurs  to  me  now,  unless  it  be  called  for. 
I  think  it  ought  to  be  emphasized  that  the  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman 
was  made  by  the  authority  of  the  book  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  has  been  fully  understood. 

Mr.  DENNY.  And  that  the  only  authority  in  our  church  to  which  the 
matter  could  be  properly  reported  was  the  General  Conference  which 
met  in  Baltimore  in  May,  1898.  Under  our  law  the  annual  conferences 
have  no  reports  made  to  them  of  the  proceedings  of  the  book  commit- 
tee. The  book  committee  is  not  responsible  to  any  annual  conference, 
so  that  it  would  not  have  been  proper  to  have  made  a  report  of  this 
contract  to  the  annual  conferences.  That  comes  only  to  the  General 
Conference,  and  when  the  General  Conference  met  all  the  facts  were  set 
forth  to  it.  I  know  that,  because  I  wrote  the  report  myself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  the  money  then? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes;  but  that  conference  was  the  first  that  met  after 
the  contract  was  made. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  disposition  has  the  church  made  of  the  money? 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  has  gone  into  the  corpus  of  the  estate. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  do  you  mean  by  that? 

Mr.  DENNY.  There  is  what  we  call  the  Publishing  House  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  South.  It  is  so  denominated.  The  corporate 
name,  however,  is  "  The  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Church  South," 
but  that  corporate  name  has  never  been  in  the  Discipline.  All  the 
plant  that  we  have  covers  the  ground,  buildings,  machinery,  and  every- 
thing in  connection  with  it.  The  surplus  proceeds  of  the  publishing 
house  go  to  the  support  of  our  worn-out  or  superannuated  and  supernu- 
merary preachers  and  their  wives,  widows,  and  orphans.  The  amount 
that  we  received  from  this  claim  has  been  invested,  or  at  least  the  order 
has  been  made  to  invest  it,  in  the  best  interest-bearing  securities,  the 
interest  to  go  to  the  support  of  the  superannuated  preachers. 

Senator  CLAY.  How  about  the  outstanding  bonds? 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  71 

Mr.  DENNY.  Those  bonds  were  paid  by  subscriptions  to  the  church 
and  by  the  earnings  of  the  publishing  house.  I  think  we  have  paid 
them  all  but  $1,000.  At  least  there  is  a  bill  in  court  now  to  have  the 
mortgage  released  up  to  the  amount  of  the  bonds  paid  5  but  no  part  of 
this  fund  went  to  that  purpose. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  the  amount  been  really  invested? 

Mr.  DENNY.  One  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  has  been 
invested  in  the  city  bonds  of  Nashville,  and  a  special  committee  of 
financial  men  has  been  appointed  to  invest  the  remainder  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  interest  goes,  where? 

Mr.  DENNY.  To  the  superannuated  preachers.  There  was  a  move- 
ment in  the  General  Conference,  which  many  members  of  the  book 
committee  opposed,  to  open  a  branch  publishing  house  at  Shanghai, 
China.  Some  of  the  members  opposed  it  as  not  being  in  the  power  of 
the  General  Conference  to  make  such  an  appropriation  of  any  of  the 
money  belonging  to  the  publishing  house. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  not  in  the  power  of  the  book  committee 
itself  to  make  such  a  diversion  of  the  funds? 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  would  not  be  called  a  diversion  if  the  General  Confer- 
ence passed  a  resolution  authorizing  us  to  expend  the  sum  of  $50,000 
for  a  branch  house  in  Shanghai,  China. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Out  of  the  general  fund? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Out  of  the  general  fund,  but  not  particularly  out  of  the 
special  fund.  We  have  a  proposition  to  establish  a  branch  house  in 
Dallas,  Tex. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  branch  houses? 

Mr.  DENNY.  We  had  not,  until  the  action  of  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence, the  ppwer  to  establish  branch  houses  with  money  taken  from  the 
book  concern. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  paper  which  you  handed  me  yesterday  [exhib- 
iting] you  do  not  want  to  be  put  in  the  report? 

Mr.  DENNtf".  No;  that  was  simply  our  statement  to  the  public.  I 
should  like  to  state,  in  connection  with  that  report,  that  our  commit- 
tee spent  many  hours  in  making  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  mat- 
ter. We  went  to  the  bottom  of  the  matter  as  far  as  we  could  go.  It 
might  be  looked  upon  as  an  expert  investigation,  because  it  was  a 
minute  and  exhaustive  investigation.  We  went  into  it  as  thoroughly 
as  we  could,  and  our  report  (not  on  the  fact  that  the  Senate  was  misled, 
but  on  the  fact  that  there  was  no  design  to  mislead  the  Senate)  was 
unanimous. 

Senator  CLAY.  How  do  you  reconcile  that  with  the  testimony  given 
here  in  which  the  witnesses  admit  that  they  intended  to  mislead? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  do  not  so  understand  the  testimony  given  here. 

Senator  CLAY.  Mr.  Stahlrnan  said  himself  that  he  thought  it  best 
to  mislead  in  order  to  keep  the  real  facts  out. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  defense  of  Mr.  Stahlman. 
He  is  amply  able  to  take  care  of  himself,  as  he  has  shown  to  this 
Senate  committee.  If  I  understood  him,  he  testified  that  he  withheld 
certain  facts,  because  he  did  not  think  they  were  material  to  the  case. 

Senator  CLAY.  He  withheld  this  knowledge  to  keep  us  from  know- 
ing certain  facts,  and  he  said,  himself,  that  the  withholding  of  these 
facts  was  calculated  to  make  us  believe  that  the  rumors  were  untrue. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes,  he  stated  that;  but  we  did  not  investigate  Mr. 
Stahlman. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  can  not  understand  how  a  report  can  be  made  that 
there  was  no  intention  to  mislead  us. 


72  METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

Mr.  DENNY.  We  investigated  the  book  agents  alone,  and  only 
reported  as  to  them. 

Senator  CLAY.  1  am  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  to  my  mind  it  looks  like  a  clear  misrepresentation  and  an  intent 
to  deceive. 

Mr.  DENNY.  You  got  a  different  view  of  it  from  the  one  we  did. 
We  did  not  investigate  Mr.  Stahlman ;  only  the  book  agents. 

Senator  CLAY,  i  do  not  blame  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Churc.h 
South;  but  I  have  received  numerous  letters  from  preachers  in  my 
State  condemning  the  misrepresentations  made,  and  saying  how  unjust 
it  was  to  the  church,  and  how  improper.  It  is  my  belief  that  the 
church  in  my  State  unanimously  condemns  it. 

Mr.  DENNY.  The  member  of  the  book  committee  from  your  State, 
Dr.  Lovejoy,  made  the  assertion  after  the  investigation  that  he  was 
convinced  more  than  ever  that  neither  Barbee  nor  Smith  had  any 
design  to  mislead  the  Senate. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  have  a  great  respect  for  the  Doctor,  and  am  his 
personal  friend,  but  I  do  not  think  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Dr.  Barbee  admitted  before  this  committee  that  lie 
intended  to  deceive  the  Senate — intended  to  keep  the  Senate  in  the 
dark — intended  that  they  should  not  know  the  facts.  I  think  he  fairly 
admitted  that  in  his  examination,  and  that  is  the  ugly  feature  in  this 
case. 

I  read  from  the  statement  which  you  have  presented,  on  page  12,  as 
follows : 

On  the  same  day  on  which  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith  sent  the  above-mentioned  tele- 
grams to  Senator  Pasco  they  received  the  following  telegram  from  Senator  Bate: 
"Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I 
would  like  to  hear  from  you  also.  In  my  judgment,  if  true,  it  will  endanger  the 
bill."  To  this  they  immediately  telegraphed  as  follows:  "Wired  Senator  Pasco 
early  this  a.  m.  as  follows:  'The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  therefore  author- 
ized to  deny  it.'" 

Here  is  how  you  put  it  in  the  statement: 

To  the  first  of  these  requests  Barbee  and  Smith  replied  by  saying  that  they  had 
already  answered  Senator  Pasco,  and  they  informed  Senator  Bate  what  they  had 
answered,  repeating  the  very  words  of  that  answer.  To  the  second  they  made  no 
reply. 

I  do  not  know  how  you  can  say  they  made  no  reply.  The  reply  is 
unequivocal  to  the  entire  question. 

Senator  CLAY.  It  is  a  reply  to  two  questions — first  as  to  40  per  cent, 
and  second  as  to  any  other  fee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  it  is  a  denial  of  both  propositions. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  told  them,  as  soon  as  I  became  cognizant  of  these  tel- 
egrams, that  I  could  not  approve  of  them;  that  I  thought  them  very 
unwise,  and  that  they  were  open  to  misrepresentation.  I  did  not 
approve  of  them  then  or  now. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Your  committee  makes  itself  responsible  for  them. 

Mr.  DENNY.  We  are  giving  their  interpretation  of  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  your  committee  has  adopted  that  interpretation 
of  its  own.  You  say  "various  considerations  restrained  them  from 
doing  so."  That  is  one  of  the  things  which  I  regret  to  see  in  this  report, 
if  you  want  to  make  any  explanation,  we  will  hear  you. 

Mr.  DENNY.    We  understood  Barbee  &  Smith  to  mean  by  their  tele 
grams  that  they  simply  informed  Senator  Bate  of  the  reply  that  they 
nad  made  to  Senator  Pasco,  and  that  the  remainder  of  Senator  Bate's 
telegram  they  did  not  reply  to  at  all;  and  the  conditions  which  induced 


METHODIST  BOOK 'CONCERN  SOUTH.  73 

them  not  to  reply  are  set  forth.  They  stated  to  us  that  they  believed 
tbat  the  arrangement  made  with  Mr.  Stahlinan  was  a  matter  in  their 
hands  alone. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes,  we  heard  that;  but,  with  all  due  deference  to 
your  committee,  I  must  say  that  their  telegram  to  Senator  Bate  was 
intended  as  a  complete  answer,  and  that  everybody  had  a  right  to  sup- 
pose, and  to  say  to  the  Senate,  that  there  was  no  fee  whatever  in  the 
case. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  think  that  the  telegram  misled  them.  I  do  not  hesi- 
tate to  say  that.  I  think  it  would  have  misled  anybody.  Our  com- 
mittee say  that  they  do  not  believe  it  was  intended  to  deceive. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  No;  you  say  that  you  do  not  think  that  Barbee  & 
Smith  are  responsible  for  a  misunderstanding  on  the  part  of  the  Senate. 

Mr.  DENNY.  The  resolution  to  which  you  now  refer  was  made  on  the 
reading  of  the  Kecord  and  was  written  on  my  knee  while  there  was  a 
discussion  going  on,  and  it  is  very  infelicitously  expressed.  If  I  had 
to  rewrite  it  I  would  not  so  express  it.  What  I  intended  to  say  in  that 
resolution  was,  that  the  purpose  of  these  men,  in  our  judgment,  had 
not  been  to  deceive.  That  is  all  that  I  meant. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  see  that  you  put  the  burden  of  error  on  the 
Senate. 

Mr.  DENNY.  That  resolution  does.  I  see  we  can  not  stand  by  that 
resolution  now;  but  I  felt  that  it  would  not  be  sincere  and  honest  in 
me  to  change  the  resolution  after  the  book  committee  had  adopted  it. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  I  wish  you  to  state  something  as  to  the  character  and 
standing  of  Barbee  and  Smith. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Dr.  Barbee  has  been  a  minister  in  our  church  for  forty- 
six  years.  He  was  a  minister  before  I  was  born.  He  has  been  a  man 
of  good  standing  and  stainless  reputation.  It  was  because  of  his 
integrity  and  the  confidence  which  the  church  had  in  him  that  he  was 
put  iii  that  position  after  the  death  of  the  previous  book  agent.  So  far 
as  I  know  there  never  has  been  a  whisper  reflecting  upon  him  in  any 
way  until  this  question  came  up;  and  while  I  believe  that  in  a  majority  of 
instances  a  man's  character  must  be  judged  by  his  acts,  the  time  also 
comes  to  everyone  of  us  when  our  acts  must  be  judged  by  our  character. 
As  to  Mr.  Smith,  he  has  been  a  business  man  in  Nashville.  He  went 
there  as  a  boy.  He  has  been  living  there  twenty  years,  and  he  is 
regarded  as  one  of  the  most  upright  men  in  that  community.  Every 
time  that  the  question  of  his  election  has  come  up  since  his  first  appoint- 
ment to  the  book  agency  he  has  been  -almost  unanimously  reelected, 
both  on  account  of  his  business  ability  and  his  sterling  character. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  that  the  fact  of  these  men's  good  character 
was  what  largely  influenced  your  committee  in  assuming  that  they  did 
not  intend  to  deceive. 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  had  a  large  influence  on  me  as  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee. It  had  great  weight  with  me,  but  I  can  not  speak  of  the  mental 
state  of  other  members  of  the  committee. 

Dr.  MASON  (another  member  of  the  committee)  said:  Another  fact 
influenced  my  mind  as  a  member  of  that  investigating  committee,  and 
that  was  the  fact  that  as  soon  as  the  attention  of  Barbee  and  Smith 
was  called  to  the  utterances  of  Senator  Hoar  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
on  the  8th  of  March  they  immediately  wrote  Senator  Pasco  about  it 
and  expressed  their  surprise  at  those  utterances. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  ought  to  say  in  relation  to  the  resolution  which  was 
adopted  April  21  last,  to  which  the  chairman  has  just  referred,  and 
which  I  explained  was  drawn  up  so  hastily,  that  it  was  made  prior  to 


74 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 


any  investigation  by  our  committee  and  was  made  simply  when  the  facts 
came  before  it  that  these  things  had  been  charged.  This  resolution  was 
the  resolution  which  ultimately  led  to  the  investigation. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  In  the  light  of  the  evidence  which  you  have 
heard  here,  your  report  would  be  quite  different  if  you  were  obliged  to 
redraft  it? 

Mr.  DENNY.  My  report  would  not  be  that  Barbee  and  Smith  had  any 
design  to  deceive  the  Senate. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  It  would  not  be  to  the  effect  that  they  did  not 
deceive  the  Senate? 

Mr.  DENNY.  It  would  not  be  to  the  effect  that  the  Senate  was  not 
misled.  I  think  that  the  Senate  was  misled.  I  think  that  with  the 
telegram  from  Senator  Bate  and  with  the  answer  to  it  it  would  be 
natural  to  put  the  meaning  on  them  which  the  Senate  put  on  them. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  rather  leave  the  charge  on  the  Senate  that  it 
had  gone  off  wrong. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  did  not  think  that  the  claim  would  have  been  consid- 
ered on  any  other  basis  than  the  fact  of  its  justice,  and  I  really  believe 
(in  fact  it  has  come  out  here  in  this  Senate  investigation)  that  this  issue 
which  seemed  to  us  to  be  collateral  and  incidental  would  have  forced 
aside  the  consideration  of  the  very  grounds  on  which  the  claim  was 
based. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  say  that  these  gentlemen  did  not  intend 
to  deceive? 

Mr.  DENNY.  That  is  my  honest  belief. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Can  you  read  these  telegrams  carefully  and 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  were  intended  to  express  the  truth  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  believe  that  a  lie  is  never  justifiable;  and  I  under- 
stand by  a  lie  a  false  representation  where  the  truth  is  due.  How  far 
a  man  is  authorized  to  withhold  a  part  of  the  truth  is  a  question  which, 
in  ethics,  has  never  yet  been  satisfactorily  settled. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Do  you  think  it  good  Christian  doctrine  to  sup- 
press the  truth  where  the  truth  is  due  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes;  there  are  such  occasions.  Suppose,  for  instance, 
that  a  person  came  into  my  house  and  asked  if  there  was  a  man  present 
whom  he  desired  to  murder.  Am  I  obliged  to  tell  him  that  he  is  there? 
That  is  an  extreme  case,  but  it  is  only  by  extreme  cases  that  you  can 
test  principles. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  And  you  think  that  the  Senate  had  no  right  to 
the  truth  in  this  matter? 

Mr.  DENNY.  My  belief  is  that  the  Senate  was  not  concerned  with  the 
question  whether  there  was  a  contract  or  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Do  you  justify  the  answer  of  Barbee  and 
Smith  to  the  letter  and  telegram  ? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  do  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Why  not? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Because,  from  my  standpoint,  they  were  not  what  I 
would  have  said. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  They  were  not  honest  telegrams? 

Mr.  DENNY.  They  are  not,  from  my  standpoint,  telegrams  which  I 
would  have  sent. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Would  you  justify  in  others  what  you  can  not 
justify  in  yourself? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  say  that  I  can  not  justify  them  on  the  ground  of  what 
I  would  have  done;  but  what  I  would  have  done  is  not  an  infallible 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  75 

test.  My  objection  to  their  act  is  not  to  the  fact  that  they  withheld 
information  of  35  per  cent,  because  I  think  they  had  a  right  to  withhold 
that  fact;  but  from  my  point  of  view  the  manner  was  objectionable. 
There  is  a  question  which  the  committee  on  publishing  interests  of 
the  General  Conference  considered  and  which  the  book  committee 
thought  to  be  of  public  interest.  Colonel  Eeeves,  who  was  a  member  of 
that  committee  and  of  the  book  committee,  is  here  and  can  give  full 
information  about  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  have  detailed  all  that.  (To  Colonel 
Eeeves.)  Is  this  statement  correct? 

Colonel  EEEVES.  Yes,  sir;  it  is  correct. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  narrative  of  the  proceedings  is  correct? 

Colonel  EEEVES.  Yes ;  I  have  the  record  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  state  from  knowledge  what  Dr.  Denny  does 
not? 

Mr.  EEEVES.  Yes;  I  state  from  knowledge. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel,  to  Mr.  Denny).  I  understand  you  have  been 
a  member  of  the  book  committee  four  years. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  was  made  a  member  of  the  book  committee  in  May, 
1894. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  At  the  time  that  you  directed  this  contract  to  be  made 
with  Mr.  Stahlman  was  any  entry  of  the  fact  made  in  the  minutes  of  the 
book  committee  or  in  any  other  record? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  suppose,  of  course,  that  the  minutes  of  the  book  com- 
mittee will  show  that  the  contract  was  ordered. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Do  you  recollect  whether  the  book  committee  directed 
the  book  agents  to  make  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman  and  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  was  to  receive  compensation? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes,  sir;  that  was  done.  When  Mr.  Stahlman  was  first 
approached  he  said  that  the  desperate  character  of  the  claim  and  the 
time  which  he  thought  it  would  take  to  collect  it  was  such  that  he 
ought  to  have  50  per  cent;  but  the  book  committee,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Stahlmau  was  a  member  of  the  church,  and  was  just  as  much 
interested  in  the  claim  as  the  rest  of  us,  thought  that  he  should  be 
willing  to  take  the  contract  for  a  less  sum  than  would  be  taken  by  au 
ordinary  claim  agent.  He  said  that  he  recognized  the  fact  that  he  was 
under  obligations  to  the  church,  and  therefore  was  willing  to  take  a 
contract  aj  35  per  cent,  which  was  agreed  to. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Please  name  the  five  men  who  composed  the  directory 
which  managed  the  affairs  of  the  book  concern  at  that  time — the  mem- 
bers who  lived  in  Nashville. 

Mr.  DENNY.  They  were  Dr.  W.  H.  Morgan,  who  was  the  chairman; 
J.  D.  Hamilton,  secretary;  Dr.  E.  A.  Young,  Thomas  D.  Fite,  and 
myself. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Were  these  men  successful  business  men — bankers, 
merchants,  etc.? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Dr.  Morgan  was  a  dentist  and  dean  of  the  dental 
department  in  Vanderbilt  University.  Mr.  Hamilton  was  a  merchant 
in  the  city.  Dr.  Young  was  formerly  the  missionary  secretary  of  the 
church. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Is  he  not  a  very  successful  banker  now? 

Mr.  DENNY.  He  is  looked  upon  as  one  of  the  ablest  financiers  in  Nash- 
ville. Mr.  Fite  is  a  man  of  extensive  business  experience,  who  has 
lived  in  Nashville  for  many  years,  and  I  am  .professor  in  Vauderbilt 
University. 


76  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  In  making  that  contract  with  Stahlman  for  35  per 
cent,  did  any  one  of  those  business  men  regard  it  as  an  extortionate  or 
extravagant  feet 

Mr.  DENNY.  On  the  contrary,  the  business  men  were  anxious  to  give 
him  50  per  cent;  suid  it  was  the  fight  I  made  which  cut  it  down  to  35 
per  cent.  I  thought  that  Mr.  Stahlman  was  just  as  much  under  obli- 
gation to  serve  the  church  as  I  was,  and  he  assented  to  that  when  we 
stated  the  terms.  There  were  men  in  that  committee,  like  Dr.  Young 
(who  is  regarded  as  a  wealthy  man),  who  said  that  if  anybody  would 
write  him  a  check  for  $25,000  he  would  think  it  the  best  bargain  he 
could  make  with  the  Government  for  our  claim.  I  told  him  that  I  was 
willing  to  let  the  claim  go  for  seventy-five  years;  that  I  thought  it  could 
be  finally  collected ;  that  the  Government  would  pay  that  claim,  and  that 
if  we  did  not  get  it  our  grandchildren  would  get  it;  and  I  believe  so  yet. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  In  making  that  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman,  was  the 
amount  of  money  which  you  had  paid  to  former  attorneys  mentioned? 
If  so,  what  was  the  amount? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  all  in  this  statement  of  Dr.  Denny's. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  have  not  seen  that  statement. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  want  to  have  these  things  duplicated. 
That  is  all  in  here  and  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  correctly  stated. 

The  statement  was  put  in  evidence  and  is  as  follows : 

Statement  of  the  book  committee  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South  concerning 
the  collection  of  the  claim  against  the  United  States  Government  for  the 
use,  occupancy,  and  damage  of  the  publishing  house  in  1864  and  1865. 

The  publishing  house  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South  was  seized  by  the 
United  States  Army  in  1863.  Not  only  was  the  church  dispossessed 
of  its  property  for  two  years,  and  deprived  of  all  benefits  therefrom, 
but  also  that  property  was  used  by  the  United  States  Army ;  much  of  it 
destroyed,  all  of  it  damaged.  The  testimony  of  parties  well  acquainted 
with  the  facts,  which  testimony  was  submitted  to  the  United  States 
Congress,  shows  that  the  claim  for  use  and  damage  of  the  property 
aggregated  $458,400. 

In  the  year  1872  (Congress  having  up  to  that  time  taken  no  steps  to 
reimburse  the  church  for  the  use,  occupation,  and  injury  to  its  property), 
Eev.  Richard  Abbey,  D.  D.,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  publishing  house 
at  the  time  of  its  seizure  by  the  United  States  Army,  was  employed  to 
prosecute  the  claim  against  the  United  States  Government.  He 
remained  in  charge  of  the  matter  till  1878,  spending  much  of  his  time 
in  Washington  city  and  was  paid  for  salary  and  expenses  $11,490,  yet 
he  could  secure  no  favorable  action  on  a  claim  the  justice  of  which 
has  been  admitted  by  the  Congress  of  the  United  States. 

From  1878  until  1888  nothing  whatever  was  done  by  Congress,  except 
that  during  the  year  1885  or  1886  a  bill  to  pay  $150,000  was  introduced 
in  one  branch  of  Congress  and  referred  to  a  committee,  but  was  not 
reported  on. 

In  1888  the  claim  was  placed  in  the  hands  of  a  firm  in  Washington, 
on  the  basis  of  a  contingent  fee  of  25  per  cent  of  the  amount  recovered. 
Bills  were  introduced  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  providing  for  the 
payment  of  $288,000.  Proof  of  the  justice  and  amount  of  the  claim  were 
submitted,  upon  which  proof  the  Senate  committee  in  1878  had  reported 
as  follows:  "The  sum  of  $288,000  would  be,  as  we  understand  the 
proof,  a  less  sum  than  was  saved  to  the  Treasury  in  the  use  of  material, 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  77 

machinery,  houses,  and  appliances  of  this  great  printing  house.  This 
sum  is  much  below  the  lowest  estimate  of  any  of  the  witnesses  as  to  the 
loss  actually  sustained  by  the  claimants,  and  would  not  be  adequate 
compensation  if  measured  by  such  a  standard."  Yet,  after  four  years  of 
work  by  this  Washington  firm,  Congress  would  do  nothing  to  reimburse 
the  church.  Another  contract  was  then  made,  in  which  15  per  cent  of 
the  amount  collected  was  to  be  given  to  one  firm  and  $50,000  to  an- 
other, the  collectors  to  pay  all  expenses  and  to  receive  no  compensa- 
tion unless  the  claim  was  paid;  yet  Congress  was  deaf  to  our  cry  for 
justice,  or  at  least  too  apathetic  to  render  us  our  just  dues. 

Here  the  church  stood  alter  having  paid  from  1872  until  1878  $11,49Q 
to  one  of  her  most  trusted  ministers,  who  spent  his  time  trying  to 
induce  Congress  to  pay  us  our  debt;  from  1888  until  1893,  having  prom- 
ised Washington  attorneys  25  per  cent  of  what  they  could  collect,  or 
$72,000  of  the  $288,000  then  sought;  then  all  other  contracts  having 
expired,  other  firms  were  promised  $93,200  if  they  could  succeed  in 
rousing  Congress  to  action. 

The  record  shows  that  from  1878  until  1896  our  attorneys  had  been 
unable  to  secure  any  report  whatever  from  the  Senate  committee,  and 
that  the  measure  for  relief  had  not  been  called  up  in  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. If  the  rate  of  interest  prevailing  in  the  South  be  con- 
sidered, the  church  had  during  a  period  of  about  thirty  years  lost  over 
$20,000  per  annum,  because  Congress  would  not  hear  our  demand  for 
justice. 

The  State  of  Tennessee,  in  which  our  property  is  located,  has  had 
during  a  period  of  thirty- three  years  nine  or  ten  Eepresentatives  and 
two  Senators  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  These  have  been 
paid  and  have  had  appropriated  for  their  benefit  during  that  period, 
on  account  of  salaries,  etc.,  over  $2,000,000,  drawn  by  taxation  largely 
from  their  own  people  and  quite  largely  from  constituents  who  are 
members  of  our  church.  We  ought  to  have  been  able,  without  the 
intermediation  of  attorneys,  to  look  to  such  Representatives  and  Sen- 
ators especially,  as  well  as  to  Congress  as  a  body,  for  a  favorable  con- 
sideration of  the  claim.  But  neither  without  or  with  the  aid  of 
attorneys  did  such  favorable  action  come,  although  we  record  with 
gratitude  that  the  claim  was  never  wanting  in  some  influential  and 
able  friends  in  each  House  of  Congress  who  were  ever  ready  to  act  in 
our  behalf.  Millions  of  dollars  had  been  appropriated  to  pay  war 
claims,  including  claims  for  schools  and  churches  of  other  denomina- 
tions, yet  we  had  not  been  able  to  collect  a  farthing  of  this  admittedly 
just  claim. 

We  are  compelled  to  say,  therefore,  that  we  are  surprised  that  Con- 
gressmen or  Senators  (especially  Tennesseeans)  should  tell  the  public 
that  the  man  who  spent  his  time  and  paid  his  own  expenses  in  an  effort 
to  cause  Congress  to  do  us  justice  is  not  entitled  to  reasonable  compen- 
sation, when  the  employment  of  an  attorney  is  not  only  customary,  but 
is  also  recognized  by  the  law  as  a  legitimate  business,  and  is  made  nec- 
essary to  meet  the  conditions  imposed  by  the  methods  of  Congress  on 
all  claimants  for  justice. 

After  nearly  twenty-five  years  of  effort,  ultimating  only  in  failure, 
the  book  committee,  in  July,  1895,  engaged  the  services  of  E.  B.  Stahl- 
man,  a  resident  of  Nashville,  Tenn.,  an  official  member  for  many  years 
of  our  McKendree  Church,  a  constant  contributor  to  the  institutions  of 
the  church,  a  man  of  large  experience,  recognized  ability,  and  indomi- 
table perse verence  and  energy,  to  take  charge  of  the  claim.  The  com- 

S.  Rep.  1416 6 


78  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

inittee  agreed  to  pay  Mr.  Stahlman  35  per  cent  of  the  amount  collected 
from  the  Government,  he  to  bear  all  expenses  and  the  church  to  be  at 
no  cost  in  case  he  failed.  Mr.  Stahlman  was  explicitly  instructed  that 
nothing  should  be  done  in  the  prosecution  of  the  claim  which  would 
even  in  the  slightest  degree  compromise  the  good  name  of  the  church, 
and  that  rather  than  compromise  the  church  the  book  committee  pre- 
ferred not  to  have  the  claim  paid.  It  took  Mr.  Stahlman  nearly  three 
years  to  secure  favorable  action  on  this  claim. 

The  book  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  agreement  with  Mr. 
Stahlman  was  a  perfectly  legitimate  and  reasonable  business  agree- 
.  ment,  in  which  a  less  sum  was  proposed  to  him  than  is  customary  in 
such  cases,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  church  has  by  this  arrange- 
ment secured  a  larger  sum  of  money  than  a  Senate  committee  recom- 
mended less  than  two  years  ago  should  be  paid  in  satisfaction  of  our 
claim 5  that  recommendation  calling  for  the  sum  of  $150,000,  which  sum 
the  book  committee  refused  to  accept. 

The  amount  to  be  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman  did  not  seem  to  the  book 
agents  to  be  a  fact  into  which  any  Member  of  Congress  had  a  right  to 
inquire.  What  Congress  was  alone  legitimately  concerned  with  was 
the  justice  of  the  claim.  What  should  be  done  with  the  money  when 
paid  was  the  business  of  the  proper  authorities  of  the  church.  No 
incidental  question  as  to  the  agreement  with  any  of  the  firms  who  rep 
resented  the  book  committee  had  anything  more  to  do  with  the  justice 
of  that  claim  than  such  an  agreement  would  have  in  a  case  before  the 
Supreme  Court;  and  it  is  unheard  of  for  that  court  to  condition  its 
decisions  on  an  attorney's  fee. 

To  show  that  the  book  agents  took  substantially  this  view  of  the 
case,  we  quote  from  a  letter  written  January  7,  1898,  by  said  agents  to 
a  Member  of  Congress,  in  answer  to  a  letter  from  him  inquiring  what 
interest  Mr.  Stahlman  had  in  the  claim.  This  letter  was  written  about 
three  weeks  before  the  bill  passed  the  lower  House: 

With  reference  to  the  share  of  interest,  if  any,  Mr.  Stahlman  may  have  in  this 
claim,  I  beg  yon  to  talk  with  him.  He  is  in  Washington  and  can  give  you  all  tlm 
information  you  desire  on  the  subject.  Surely,  whether  he  has  pecuniary  interest  in 
the  matter  ought  not  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  merits  of  our  claim,  which  is  admit- 
tedly just,  and  which,  as  we  understand  it,  you  have  on  all  occasions,  without  quali- 
fication, signified  your  willingness  to  support.  The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire, 
and  if  in  the  final  adjustment  it  shall  he  deemed  proper  to  pay  Mr.  Stahlman  a  rea- 
sonable compensation  for  his  services,  and  this  compensation  shall  be  given  with  th« 
consent  of  the  proper  authorities  of  the  church,  you  I  am  sure  will  agree  that  it  will 
not  be  an  improper  thing  to  do.  The  claim  wsw  placed  by  us  originally  in  the  hands 
of  a  Washington  attorney.  For  reasons  satisfactory  to  us,  and  entirely  satisfactory 
to  our  friends  then  in  the  Senate  and  House,  we  refused  to  renew  the  arrangement 
when  it  expired.  Surely  we  ought  not  to  be  made  to  suffer  at  the  hands  of  our  Ten 
nessee  Representatives  because  we  declined  to  renew  an  arrangement  with  th's 
Washington  attorney,  and  instead  accepted  the  proffered  assistance  of  a  resident  of 
Tennessee  and  a  friend  and  member  of  the  church;  one  who  even  as  early  as  1891, 
and  before  the  agreement  with  the  Washington  attorney  had  expired,  rendered  valu- 
able assistance  in  our  endeavor  to  pass  the  bill. 

As  to  the  charge  that  Barbee  &  Smith  made  false  representations 
to  members  of  the  Senate  concerning  the  compensation  to  be  paid  to 
any  agent  for  the  collection  of  this  claim,  the  following  correspondence 
is  given : 

CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  HON.   S.  PASCO. 

After  the  bill  had  been  adopted  by  the  House  of  Eepresentatives, 
January  28, 1898,  it  went  to  the  Senate,  where  it  was  in  charge  of  Hon. 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  79 

S.  Pasco,  Senator  from  Florida,  upon  whom  we  largely  depended  for  its 
passage  through  the  Senate. 

On  March  5, 1898,  Mr.  Pasco  wrote  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents, 
the  following  letter: 

Messrs.  BARBEE  &  SMITH, 

Nashville,  Tenn. 

DEAR  SIRS:  Some  malicious  persons  are  circulating  a  slanderous  story  about  the 
Capitol,  with  the  evident  purpose  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  our  bill.  It  is  to  the 
effect  that  you  have  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stahlman  to  pay  him  40  per  cent  of 
the  amount  recovered.  It  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  get  any  contradiction,  because 
I  know  very  well  that  the  agents  of  the  publishing  house  knew  better  how  to  con- 
duct their  trust  than  to  make  such  an  improvident  bargain.  I  knew  also  that  there 
was  no  power  to  make  such  a  contract,  so  I  did  not  hesitate  to  denounce  it  as  a 
malicious  slander.  And  I  am  sure  also  that  the  Senators  who  came  to  me  for  infor- 
mation upon  the  subject  are  thoroughly  satisfied  with  my  statement.  But  as  a 
matter  of  caution  it  will  be  very  well  for  me  to  have  a  positive  denial  from  you, 
which  I  can  use  if  it  appears  necessary,  either  before  the  bill  comes  up  for  action 
or  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  so  I  suggest  that  you  send  me  a  telegram  on  Monday 
as  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  authorizing  me,  as  I  am  sure  you  can,  to  deny  this 
statement.  I  am  glad  to  say  that  there  is  a  very  fair  prospect  of  getting  the  bill  up 
for  consideration  by  Tuesday,  and  everything  indicates  that  our  efforts  will  be  suc- 
cessful. I  have  had  a  good  many  conferences  with  Senators  with  reference  to  it, 
and  the  many  assurances  of  support  that  have  been  given  to  me  and  others  who 
have  taken  an  interest  in  the  matter  convince  me  that  it  has  gained  strength  since 
it  came  to  the  Senate.  Senator  Bate  has  been  unceasing  in  his  efforts  to  bring  the 
matter  to  a  successful  conclusion,  and  we  shall  continue  to  do  all  in  our  power  to 
get  a  vote  as  early  as  is  possible. 

Yours,  very  truly,  S.  PASCO. 

This  letter  coming  from  the  Senator  who  had  the  bill  in  charge,  and 
asking,  as  both  Dr.  Barbee  and  Mr.  Smith  assure  us  they  understood, 
the  direct  question  as  to  whether  or  not  they  were  under  contract  to 
pay  Mr.  Stahlman  40  per  cent  of  the  amount  secured,  was,  in  accord- 
ance with  Mr.  Pasco's  request,  answered  by  telegram  on  Monday, 
March  7,  as  follows : 

Letter  of  5th  received.  The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  hereby  authorized 
to  deny  it. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 

This  telegram  was  delivered  in  Washington  March  7,  12.43  p.  m., 
W.  Jeffers,  a  Senate  employee,  receipting  for  it.  A  few  minutes  later 
they  sent  Senator  Pasco  the  following  telegram,  the  purpose  of  which 
was  to  enable  Mr.  Pasco  to  inform  himself  more  fully  upon  the  matter 
if  he  desired  further  information  : 

Have  asked  Mr.  Stahlman  to  call  at  once  and  see  you.  He  is  a  gentleman  upon 
whose  statements  yon  may  implicitly  rely.  He  is  our  friend  and  neighbor  and  an 
official  member  of  our  church,  whose  interest  in  our  behalf  reaches  beyond  and 
above  pecuniary  consideration. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 

This  was  delivered  at  1.15  p.  m.,  J.  B.  Lloyd,  a  Senate  employee, 
receipting  for  it. 

These  were  the  only  communications  between  Barbee  &  Smith,  book 
agents,  and  Senator  Pasco  pending  the  passage  of  the  bill.  The  first 
telegram  answers  categorically  the  question  asked  by  the  Senator, 
which  question  was  as  to  the  fee  of  40  per  cent.  The  second  refers 
him  to  our  representative,  Mr.  Stahlman,  who  was  present  in  Wash- 
ington and  could  have  given  him  any  information  desired.  At  the  same 
time  a  telegram  was  sent  to  Mr.  Stahlman,  telling  him  to  call  on  Sen- 
ator Pasco  with  reference  to  this  matter,  and  Mr.  Stahlman  informs  us 


80  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

thnt  when  he  called  Senator  Pasco  said  no  further  information  was 
needed. 

The  bill  authorizing  the  payment  of  the  claim  was  passed  by  the 
Senate  March  8.  On  March  28  the  attention  of  Barbee  &  Smith  wns 
called  to  the  Congressional  Eecord  of  March  8,  containing  the  debate 
in  the  Senate  pending  the  passage  of  the  bill,  in  which  debate  several 
{Senators  quoted  them  as  authority  for  the  statement  that  no  part  of 
the  claim  should  be  paid  to  any  agent  or  attorney.  Thereupon  they 
wrote  to  Senator  Pasco  a  letter,  of  which  the  following  is  an  extract 
and  all  that  relates  to  the  matters  in  issue : 

NASHVII-LE,  TENN.,  May  29, 1S98. 
Hon.  S.  FASCO,  United  States  Senate, 

Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR:  On  the  7th  of  March  we  leceived  a  letter  from  you  under  the  date  of 
March  5,  in  which  you  stated  among  other  things : 

"Some  malicious  persons  are  circulating  a  slanderous  story  about  the  Capitol 
with  the  evident  purpose  to  obstruct  the  passage  of  our  bill.  It  is  to  the  effect  th.it 
you  have  made  a  contract  with  Mr.  Stuhlman  to  pay  him  40  per  cent  of  any  amount 
recovered." 

To  this  we  responded : 

"Letter  of  5th  received.  The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  authorized  to 
deny  it." 

We  also,  on  the  7th  of  March,  received  a  telegram  from  Senator  Bate  on  the  same 
subject  and  repeated  to  him  the  telegram  we  had  sent  you. 

We  should  not  deem  it  necessary  to  say  anything  further  on  the  subject  but  for 
the  fact  that  during  the  discussion  of  our  bill  in  the  Senate  (as  shown  by  the  Con- 
gressional Record,  which  we  have  just  read)  statements  were  made  by  one  or  two 
Senators  which,  by  inference,  at  least,  were  calculated  to  create  the  impression  that 
nothing  was  to  be  paid  by  the  publishing  house  to  any  attorney  or  representative 
of  the  book  agents. 

The  claim,  as  you  are  aware,  was  pending  in  Congress  for  nearly  thirty  years. 
During  several  years  of  that  period  we  had  a  Washington  attorney  (Mr.  lioyersj 
employed  on  a  percentage  basis.  This  arrangement  was  made  with  the  full  knowl- 
edge and  consent  of  our  book  committee  (the  book  agents,  as  very  properly  stated 
by  you,  having  no  authority  to  make  such  contracts  without  the  consent  of  that 
committee).  For  reasons  satisfactory  to  our  friends  in  the  Senate  and  House  we 
declined  to  renew  the  contract  when  it  expired,  and  instead  accepted  the  proffered 
assistance  of  others,  some  of  whom  were  devoted  friends  and  members  of  your 
church  and  one  of  whom,  even  as  early  as  1891  and  before  the  agreement  with  the 
Washington  attorney  expired,  had  rendered  valuable  assistance  in  our  endeavors  to 
pass  the  bill.  This  gentleman  was  as  earnest  in  his  endeavor  to  help  us  then  as  lie 
was  subsequently,  the  only  difference  being  that  formerly  much  of  his  time  was 
occupied  in  other  pursuits,  while  during  the  past  two  and  a  half  years  he  has  had 
time  which  he  could  call  his  own,  and  a  good  portion  of  which  during  his  extended 
sojourn  in  Washington  he  has  seen  fit  to  largely  devote  to  our  interests. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  presumed  that  this  gentleman  and  others  who  assisted  him 
should  be  willing  to  serve  the  publishing  house  and  incur  the  large  expense  of  stay- 
ing in  Washington  without  some  compensation,  and  if,  therefore,  in  the  final  adjust- 
ment it  was  deemed  proper  to  pay  these  gentlemen  a  reasonable  compensation  for 
heir  services  and  expenses,  and  this  compensation  was  paid  with  the  consent  of  the 
roper  authorities  of  the  church,  yon,  as  well  as  other  Senators,  we  are  sure,  will 
gree  that  it  w  as  not  an  improper  thing  to  do.  *  *  * 

To  this  letter  the  following  answer  was  made  by  Senator  Pasco, 
omitting  the  closing  sentences,  which  were  purely  personal  and  do  not 
relate  to  the  matter  in  issue: 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  April  6, 1898. 
Messrs.  BARBEE  &  SMITH, 

Nashville,  Tenn. 

DEAR  SIRS  :  Your  letter  of  March  29  relative  to  the  Methodist  Book  claim  was  duly 
received,  and  I  value  highly  the  kind  manner  in  which  you  speak  of  the  efforts  I 
have  made  to  secure  favorable  action  in  the  Senate  upon  it. 

I  have  always  felt  that  the  question  of  compensating  the  gentlemen  who  repre- 
sented the  publishing  house  here  in  Washington  while  this  claim  was  pending  before 
Congress  belonged  entirely  to  the  book  agents  and  the  book  committee  of  the  Metli- 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  81 

odist  Church.  Although  it  was  understood  from  the  statements  that  were  made  that 
they  were  not  influenced  by  a  desire  to  gain  large  fees,  yet  it  is  quite  proper  that 
tbey  should  be  paid  their  expenses  and  such  other  remuneration  as  the  church 
authorities  deem  fair  and  just.  J  was  well  satislied  that  no  such  exorbitant  and 
unreasonable  contract  existed  as  was  alleged,  and  I  did  not  hesitate  to  deny  it  before 
I  received  your  telegram,  which  as  you  know;  I  nsed  freely  both  in  the  Senate  and 
among  Senators  who  approached  me  upon  the  subject. 

Yours,  very  truly,  S.  PASCO. 

A  careful  reading  of  this  correspondence  fails  to  reveal  to  us  suffi- 
cient ground  for  the  charge  that  Messrs.  Barbee  and  Smith  intended 
to  mislead  Mr.  Pasco  or  any  other  Senator.  The  fact  that  they  wrote  to 
Mr.  Pasco  as  soon  as  they  learned  of  the  statements  that  had  been 
made  by  Senators  and  informed  him  of  the  incorrectness  of  these 
statements  is  evidence  that  they  themselves  were  surprised  at  the  con- 
clusions reached  by  Senators.  Mr.  Pasco,  in  his  reply,  not  only  does 
not  charge  them  with  deception,  but  says,  "I  have  always  felt  that 
the  question  of  compensating  the  gentlemen  who  represented  the  pub- 
lishing house  here  in  Washington  while  this  claim  was  pending  before 
Congress  belonged  entirely  to  the  book  agents  and  the  book  committee 
of  the  MethodistChurch."  And  he  says  again,  "It  is  quite  proper  that 
they  should  be  paid  their  expenses  and  such  other  remuneration  as 
the  church  authorities  deem  fair  and  just."  This  he  wrote  one  mouth 
after  the  bill  had  passed,  showing  that  he  had  at  that  time  no  feeling  of 
iiidignation  against  Messrs.  Barbee  and  Smith  for  having  misled  him, 
and  did  not  believe  that  they,  as  the  agents  of  the  publishing  house, 
in  carrying  out  this  contract  with  their  representative,  were  acting  in 
bad  faith  toward  him  or  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Pasco  said  in  the  Senate  when  the  bill  was  under  consideration : 

It  is  proper  to  say  that  I  heard  a  rumor  that  was  whispered  about  the  Senate 
chamber  during  tbe  last  few  days  to  the  effect  that  some  claim  agents  would  get  a 
very  large  proportion  of  this  amount.  On  Saturday  last,  when  I  heard  that  report, 
I  sat  down  and  wrote  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith.  I  was  thoroughly  satisfied  that  the 
report  had  no  foundation  whatever  in  fact,  but  I  stated  that  I  wished  to  haye  in  my 
possession  a  statement  from  them  which  I  could  use  either  in  private  conversation 
or  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  if  necessary,  and  yesterday  morning  I  got  this  reply  to 
my  letter- 

"  Letter  of  5th  received.  The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  authorized  to 
deny  it." 

I  made  the  statement  fully  in  this  letter,  which  sot  forth  that  some  agents  here 
would  get  a  very  large  percentage  of  tbe  amount. 

Senator  Pasco  was  a  friend  of  the  bill,  and  was  doing  what  he  could 
to  secure  its  passage,  and  his  efforts  were  appreciated  by  the  church. 
If  his  letter  of  March  5  to  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith  had  been  at  hand 
and  had  been  read  it  would  have  appeared  that  his  inquiry  was  with 
reference  to  a  fee  of  40  per  cent,  and  not  so  broad  as  the  statement 
from  memory  made  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  This  might  have  pre 
vented  any  misunderstanding  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  telegram  of 
Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith,  particularly  if  the  second  telegram  had  also 
been  read. 

THE   TELEGRAMS  TO   SENATOR  BATE. 

On  the  same  day  on  which  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith  sent  the  above- 
mentioned  telegrams  to  Senator  Pasco  they  received  the  following 
telegram  from  Senator  Bate: 

Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee,  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I  would 
like  to  hear  from  you  also.  In  my  judgment,  if  true,  it  will  endanger  the  bill. 


82  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

To  this  they  immediately  telegraphed  as  follows: 

Wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  morning  as  follows :  "  The  statement  is  untrue,  and 
you  are  hereby  authorized  to  deny  it." 

The  book  agents  inform  us  that  they  understood  this  telegram  to 
contain  two  requests.  To  the  first  of  these  requests  Barbee  <&  Smith 
replied  by  saying  that  they  had  already  answered  Senator  Pasco,  and 
they  informed  Senator  Bate  what  they  had  answered,  repeating  the 
very  words  of  that  answer.  To  the  second  they  made  no  reply.  Various 
considerations,  as  they  inform  us,  restrained  them  from  doing  so : 

1.  It  would  have  been  simply  impossible  for  them,  on  a  few  moments' 
notice,  at  the  very  time  when  they  supposed  the  bill  was  up  for  its  final 
passage,  to  frame  a  telegram  sufficiently  comprehensive  to  cover  all  the 
facts  in  the  case. 

2.  They  had  already  sent  a  second  and  fuller  telegram  to  Senator 
Pasco,  asking  him  to  confer  with  Mr.  Stahlman  in  regard  to  any  point 
of  difficulty  or  importance. 

2.  Dr.  Barbee  had  three  months  before,  by  telegram  from  Bryan,  Tex., 
dated  December  10,  1897,  informed  Senator  Bate  most  definitely  that 
Mr.  Stahlman  had  full  authority,  as  follows : 

Your  telegram  mailed  me  here.  Confer  with  Stahlman,  who  understands  the 
case  thoroughly  and  has  full  authority. 

J.  D.  BARBEE. 

As  they  sincerely  believed  that  their  representative,  who  was  on  the 
ground  watching  the  progress  of  the  case,  was  a  man  of  ability  and 
integrity,  they  did  not  deem  it  wise  or  becoming  in  them  to  thrust  him 
aside  and  to  take  the  case  into  their  own  hands,  800  miles  away. 

We  sincerely  regret  that  Senator  Bate  fell  into  an  error  as  to  the 
meaning  of  this  telegram  of  March  7,  and,  owing  to  this  error,  made 
statements  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate  that  were  incorrect. 

For  example,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  discover  just  how,  from  the 
telegram  of  Barbee  and  Smith,  he  could  have  drawn  the  following  infer- 
ence. In  reply  to  a  question  from  a  Senator  as  to  whether  anyone 
was  to  be  paid  for  prosecuting  the  claim,  Senator  Bate  said,  as  reported 
in  the  Congressional  Eecord : 

I  take  pleasure  in  saying  that,  as  I  heard  such  a  rumor  whispered  around  yester- 
day or  the  day  before,  I  received  a  dispatch,  as  did  also  the  chairman  of  the  sub- 
committee of  the  Committee  on  Claims,  from  Barbee  &  Smith,  who  are  the  head 
of  the  concern,  stating  that  there  was  not  one  word  of  truth  in  the  statement  that 
the  fund  was  to  be  diverted  in  any  such  way. 

Nor  do  we  see  how  Senator  Bate,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  claim  for 
many  years,  could  have  fallen  into  the  following  remarkable  error,  as 
stated  in  the  Congressional  Kecord  of  March  8 : 

I  want  to  say  in  this  connection  that  this  fund  is  to  be  distributed  to  all  alike,  to 
the  Northern  Church  and  the  Southern  Church,  to  the  Republicans,  and  Democrats, 
and  Populists,  and  Prohibitionists — all  are  to  share  alike. 

With  reference  to  all  these  letters  and  telegrams  it  ought  to  be  said 
that  the  book  committee,  in  concluding,  after  a  careful  and  minute 
inquiry,  that  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith  had  not  intended  to  deceive  or 
mislead  any  of  the  Senators  of  the  United  States,  did  not  reach  this 
conclusion  solely  on  the  statements  found  in  the  letters  and  telegrams. 
Both  Dr.  Barbee  and  Mr.  Smith  were  before  the  book  committee  and 
testified  most  positively  that  they  had  notr  intended  to  deceive  or  to 
mislead.  They  are  both  men  of  established  character,  of  the  highest 
reputation.  No  stain  has  ever  rested  on  their  good  names.  In  the 
case  of  Dr.  Barbee  we  had  a  minister  of  the  gospel  for  forty-six  years, 
a  man  often  trusted  by  the  church,  and  with  no  charge  that  he  has 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH.  83 

ever  been  false  to  his  trust.  The  book  committee  could  not  lightly 
deal  with  the  statements  of  these  men  long  trusted.  A  character  is 
not  easily  made,  and  when  established  is  entitled  to  great  weight. 
The  book  committee  is  well  aware  that  for  the  most  part  a  man's 
character  is  to  be  judged  by  his  acts,  but  every  man  at  times  needs  to 
have  his  acts  judged  by  his  character,  otherwise  no  man  could  stand 
in  the  confidence  of  his  fellow-men.  Men  do  not  break  down  at  one 
point,  in  a  single  act,  but  by  slow  processes  character  as  an  entirety 
is  weakened,  and  guilt  shows  itself  in  more  than  one  place. 

ACTION  OP  THE   CHURCH    IN    MATTERS    PERTAINING  TO   THIS  CASE. 

The  claim  against  the  Government  having  been  paid, the  book  agents, 
by  the  authority  of  the  book  committee,  on  the  21st  day  of  March,  1898, 
paid  over  to  Mr.  Stahlman  the  amount  agreed  upon. 

The  book  committee  for  the  quadrennium,  which  would  expire  early 
the  following  month,  held  its  last  session  in  Nashville,  Tenn.,  on  April 
21, 1898.  While  it  was  in  session  Drs.  Denny  and  Lovejoy  introduced 
the  following  resolution,  which  was  unanimously  passed: 

Whereas  when  arrangements  in  accordance  with  which  our  claim  against  the 
United  States  Government  was  collected,  explicit  instructions  were  given  that  noth- 
ing should  be  done  which  should  even  in  the  slightest  degree  compromise  the  good 
name  of  the  church,  and  that  rather  than  compromise  the  church  we  wonld  prefer 
not  to  have  the  claim  paid ;  and  whereas,  when  the  hill  for  the  payment  of  this  claim 
was  under  discussion  in  the  United  States  Senate,  certain  statements  were  made  by 
some  Senators  which  did  not  accord  with  the  facts,  such  statements  being  made  pro- 
fessedly on  the  authority  of  the  book  agents;  yet  whereas  we  do  not  believe  that 
our  book  agents  have,  either  in  fact  or  in  intention,  made  any  statement  contrary  to 
the  exact  truth;  therefore, 

Itesolved,  That  the  book  agents  be  instructed  to  investigate  the  matter  and  prepare 
a  statement  relative  to  the  whole  subject,  that  the  General  Conference  may  be 
informed  of  the  facts  aud  the  church  be  prepared  to  show  that  she  is  free  from  all 
blame. 

The  book  committee  and  the  book  agents  made  their  report  to  the 
General  Conference,  setting  forth  the  financial  condition  of  the  pub- 
lishing house,  and  the  Government  claim  was  therein  set  out,  its  nature, 
justness,  the  efforts  made  to  collect  it,  the  long  delay,  the  employment 
of  Mr.  Stahlman  on  a  contingent  fee  of  35  per  cent,  the  collection  of  the 
claim,  and  the  payment  to  Mr.  Stahlman  of  the  sum  agreed  upon.  The 
report  was  published  in  pamphlet  form,  submitted  to  the  conference, 
and  was  generally  distributed  among  its  members  on  May  5,  the  first 
day  of  the  term  of  the  General  Conference. 

When  the  General  Conference  was  organized  one  of  the  standing 
committees  elected  was  the  committee  on  publishing  interests,  composed 
of  one  member  from  each  of  the  forty-seven  annual  conferences,  which 
was  the  proper  committee  to  consider  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  pub- 
lishing house.  So  soon  as  the  committee  on  publishing  interests  was 
organized,  and  in  fact  on  the  first  day  of  the  conference,  Barbee  and 
Smith,  agents,  demanded  an  investigation  of  their  conduct  in  regard  to 
the  collection  of  the  claim  from  the  Government.  At  the  first  meeting 
of  the  said  committee  the  following  was  passed : 

Resolved,  That  all  matters  connected  with  the  claim  of  our  church  on  the  United 
States  Government  be  made  the  special  order  for  Wednesday  next,  3  p.  m.,  and  that 
the  book  agents  be  requested  to  attend  and  give  the  committee  all  necessary 
information. 

On  the  day  appointed  this  matter  was  taken  up  by  the  full  commit- 
tee, and  testimony  was  introduced,  both  oral  and  written.  Three 
members  of  the  book  committee  and  Barbee  and  Smith  were  examined. 
Every  member  of  the  committee  was  at  liberty  to  interrogate  the  wit- 


84  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

nesses.  The  examination  of  Barbee  and  Smith  especially  was  prolonged 
and  thorough.  The  letters  and  telegrams  which  passed  between  them 
and  Senators  Pascp  and  Bate,  or  copies,  were  put  in  evidence.  The 
committee  made  a  minute  and  prolonged  investigation  into  the  responsi- 
bility of  the  book  agents  for  misstatements  made  by  Senators  on  the 
floor  of  the  Senate  pending  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

The  evidence  having  been  concluded,  a  motion  by  Judge  G.  A.  Han- 
son "that  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  draft  suit- 
able resolutions  regarding  the  whole  matter,  and  report  back  same  to 
this  committee  at  its  next  meeting,"  was  passed,  and  Mr.  J.  L.  Wheat, 
of  Kentucky;  Judge  G.  A.  Hanson,  of  Florida;  Rev.  Drs.  J.  O.  Willson, 
of  South  Carolina,  C.  C.  Woods,  of  Missouri,  and  Eev.  W.  J.  Collier,  of 
Tennessee,  were  appointed  on  said  committee,  and  at  the  next  meeting 
of  the  full  committee  Messrs.  Wheat,  Hanson,  Willson,  and  Collier 
made  a  report,  the  following  being  the  body  of  said  report: 

First.  That  our  church  was  fully  entitled,  as  a  matter  of  right  and  justice,  to  the 
sum  of  $228,000,  for  the  use  of,  and  damage  to,  our  property  by  the  United  States. 

Second.  That  the  contract  of  the  book  committee  and  book  agents  with  Col.  E.  B. 
Stahlman  was,  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  a  reasonable  and  proper  one, 
and  in  accordance  with  the  usual  business  methods  in  like  cases,  and  is  approved ; 
and  the  publishing  committee  specially  commends  the  instructions  given  such 
attorney  that  no  improper  measures  should  be  used  in  prosecuting  our  claim. 

Third.  That  the  settlement  of  said  contract  is  also  approved. 

Fourth.  That  our  book  agents  and  book  committee  are  not  responsible  for  the 
misunderstanding  that  existed  in  the  minds  of  Senators  upon  the  passage  of  the  bill 
granting  our  claim. 

May  11, 1898. 

It  was  sought  to  amend  this  report  so  as  to  show  that,  inasmuch  as 
members  of  the  Senate  voted  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  under  the 
belief  that  no  part  of  the  recovery  was  to  go  to  an  attorney,  the 
money  should  be  paid  back  to  the  United  States  Government.  After 
a  full  discussion  all  proposed  amendments  were  voted  down,  and  the 
report  of  the  special  committee  was  adopted.  Although  there  was 
some  diversity  of  opinion  touching  the  questions  of  how  far  Senators 
were  misled,  and  the  moral  obligation  resting  on  the  church  to  tender 
back  the  money  to  the  Government,  yet  there  was  no  difference  of 
opinion  as  to  the  blamelessness  of  the  book  agents;  at  least  one  of  the 
members  who  voted  ."  no  "  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  announced  in 
open  committee  that  he  supposed  there  was  not  a  member  of  the  com- 
mittee who  believed  Barbee  or  Smith  was  guilty  of  any  wrongdoing, 
and  the  statement  went  unchallenged. 

On  June  9, 1898,  Senator  Lodge  introduced  in  the  Senate  the  following : 

Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Claims  be  directed  to  inquire  and  report  to  whom 
the  money  was  paid  under  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  South,  and  also 
as  to  all  circumstances  connected  with  the  passage  of  the  bill  providing  for  the  pay- 
ment of  said  claim  and  with  the  subsequent  payment  of  the  money  under  said  act  of 
Congress. 

The  same  day  Senators  Pasco  and  Bate  made  statements  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  reflecting  on  the  book  agents,  and  other  Senators  very 
seriously  reflected  on  the  church.  On  June  10  the  book  agents,  Mr. 
Stahlman  joining  in  the  request,  sent  the  following  telegram  to  a  num- 
ber of  Senators : 

We  hope  the  Lodge  resolution  will  pass  and  that  a  thorough  investigation  may 
follow.  We  do  not  care  to  discuss  the  matter  now.  All  we  ask  on  our  behalf,  as 
well  as  the  church,  is  that  you  and  other  Senators  who  supported  the  claim  shall 
suspend  judgment  and  refrain  from  comment  or  criticism  until  after  the  committee 
shall  have  done  its  work.  We  are  persuaded  that  we  shall  be  able  to  show  to  the 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH.  85 

satisfaction  of  the  committee  and  the  Senate  that  all  statements  made  by  ns designed 
to  promote  the  passage  of  the  hill  were  justified  by  the  facts  and  circumstances  of 
the  case. 

The  book  committee  for  the  present  quadrennium  was  elected  on 
May  23, 1898,  and  met  in  Nashville  on  June  14  for  organization  and 
for  the  transaction  of  business,  and  so  soon  as  organized  Messrs.  Bar- 
bee  and  Smith  demanded  a  thorough  investigation,  which  thorough 
investigation  has  been  made,  and  has  culminated  in  this  report. 

From  the  history  of  this  movement  and  from  the  action  of  Congress 
it  stands  sufficiently  attested  that  the  claim  was  just  and  that  the 
long  delay  was  therefore  a  hardship  to  the  church.  After  the  claim 
had  been  five  times  favorably  reported  on  by  the  Committee  on  Claims 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  had  been  finally  indorsed  by 
large  majorities  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  a  step  was  taken  in  the 
offering  of  the  Lodge  resolution  which  was  calculated  to  cast  obloquy 
upon  the  M.  E.  Church  South. 

As  the  representatives  of  that  church,  which  has  had  an  unsullied 
history  from  its  very  origin,  and  which  has  stood  for  ecclesiastical, 
civic,  political,  and  personal  integrity  in  every  period  of  its  history 
and  in  every  place  of  opportunity,  we  most  respectfully  demand  a 
thorough  investigation  into  the  church's  relation  to  the  settlement  of 
this  claim  as  involved  in  the  methods  of  the  book  company  and  book 
agents  in  procuring  the  passage  of  the  bill  of  settlement. 

In  order  that  the  Senate  may  not  judge  the  church  by  the  state 
inents  of  individuals  either  within  or  without  the  Senate,  and  whether 
prejudiced  for  or  against  this  claim,  we  have  fully  investigated  the 
movement  from  its  beginning  and  have  submitted  herein  a  history  of 
the  efforts  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  bill,  with  all  correspondence  and 
telegrams  relating  to  the  issue  involved  in  the  proposed  investigation. 

It  is  due  to  the  book  agents  and  to  the  church  that  attention  be 
called  to  the  fact  that  when  the  bill  was  before  the  Senate  on  March  8 
and  statements  were  being  made  that  no  agent  or  attorney  was  to 
receive  any  part  of  the  money  the  book  agents  were  wholly  without 
knowledge  that  any  such  statements  were  being  made  or  that  there 
was  any  intention  on  the  part  of  any  Senator  to  make  such  statements. 
The  book  agents,  believing,  for  reason,  that  such  attorneys  were  usually 
paid  for  their  services  and  that  the  Senators  knew  this,  when  they 
received  Senator  Pasco's  letter  of  March  5  asking  only  as  to  whether 
Mr.  Stahlman  was  to  receive  40  per  cent,  which  they  interpreted  to 
mean  rather  than  some  other  per  cent,  assured  him  on  this  point  in 
their  telegram  of  March  7.  Of  the  interpretation  and  use  of  that  tele- 
gram before  the  Senate  ttiey  were  wholly  ignorant  until  twenty  days 
after  the  passage  of  the  bill. 

Finally,  the  church  which  we  represent,  one  whose  very  existence 
was  put  in  jeopardy  by  the  issues  of  the  civil  war,  and  whose  publishing 
house  was  compelled,  on  account  of  great  losses,  to  struggle  along  with 
the  problem  as  to  whether  it  should  live  or  die,  has  survived  all  adverse 
conditions,  and  has  triumphed.  It  can  not  in  any  sense  afford  to  have 
its  good  name  reproached  or  its  efficiency  limited  by  accepting  either  a 
bestowment  or  a  payment  which,  by  any  subsequent  action  of  the  United 
States  Senate,  shall  carry  aught  to  tarnish  that  honor  which  it  has 
maintained  at  all  cost,  both  in  war  and  in  peace,  in  poverty  and  now  in 
prosperity,  and  which  its  members  hold  above  all  price. 

We  beg,  therefore,  that  the  Senate  shall,  after  thorough  investiga- 
tion, state  in  unequivocal  terms  the  innocence  of  the  church  of  that 


86  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

wrong  implied  in  the  passage  of  the  Lodge  resolntion,  and  thus  leave 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  uuimpeached  in  the  eyes  of  the 
nation,  for  the  good  and  honor  of  which  it  is  the  duty  of  Congress  and 
the  church  alike  to  labor. 

COLLINS  BENNY,  Chairman. 

J.  D.  HAMILTON,  Secretary. 

J.  M.  MASON. 

JC.  C.  BEEVES. 

.1.  A.  ODELL. 

•Us.  CAMPBELL. 

THOS.  D.  FITE. 

>V.  C.  KENDRICK. 

J.  B.  MORGAN. 


STATEMENT  OF  REV.  B.  F.  HAYNES. 

Rev.  TJ.  F.  FlAYNES,  of  Nashville,  Tenn.,  was  called  by  the  chair- 
man. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  wish  to  make  any  statement  to  this  com- 
mittee T 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Nothing  specially.  I  will  answer  any  questions  put 
to  me. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  information  as  to  this  claim  that 
would  be  of  value  to  this  committee? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  As  to  what  feature  of  it? 

The  CHAIRMAN.  As  to  any  feature  of  it. 

Mr.  HAYNES.  My  knowledge  of  the  claim  and  of  its  history  is  all 
gathered  from  documentary  evidence  in  the  case.  I  know  nothing  of 
my  personal  knowledge,  except  as  gained  from  the  history  of  the  case 
in  the  Congressional  Record  and  from  the  report  of  the  book  com- 
mittee to  the  General  Conference  in  Baltimore  last  May. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  church  are  you  a  member  of? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  The  M.  E.  Church  South. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Are  you  a  minister? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  paper  do  you  publish? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  The  Zion  Outlook,  of  Nashville,  Tenn. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  interest  in  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern ? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Nothing  whatever.  I  have.no  official  connection  with 
it,  and  only  such  an  interest  as  a  member  or  the  church  would  have. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  understand  the  subject  of  the  inquiry  here? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  you  do  not  know  that  you  have  anything  to  state 
outside  of  the  documents? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Nothing  outside  of  the  documents. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  have  no  suggestion  to  make,  have  you? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be  proper  for  me  to  make 
any  suggestion.  The  interest  I  have  is  from  the  standpoint  of  a  minister 
of  the  church.  What  I  have  clone  in  the  matter  of  bringing  the  atten- 
tion of  the  church  to  the  subject,  has  been  in  vindication  of  the  church, 
and  that  the  church  might  understand  the  odium  and  stigma  put  upon 
it.  I  have  sought  through  the  best  efforts  that  I  could  make  to  do 
everything  which  would  raise  a  sentiment  so  that  the  church  might 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  87 

wash  licr  bands  of  complicity  in  the  matter.    The  church,  as  a  denomi, 
nation,  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.     It  is  only  constructively,  officially 
and  technically  that  it  has  any  responsibility  in  the  matter.    It  is  the 
church  officials  who  have,  as  I  understand,  practiced  deception  on  the 
Senate  and  obtained  money  by  these  means. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  acquired  your  information  from  the  proceed- 
ings in  the  Senate  on  which  you  made  your  charges  of  deception? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Yes;  that,  in  connection  with  the  admission  of  the 
book  committee  that  a  fee  of  $100,800  had  been  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman. 

Mr  GARLAND  (counsel).  Is  this  paper  which  you  control  recognized 
as  an  organ  of  the  church  ? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Not  at  all.  It  is  private  property.  It  was  formerly 
called  the  Tennessee  Methodist  and  is  now  the  Zion  Outlook. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Was  the  Tennessee  Methodist  an  official  organ  of  the 
Church? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  At  one  time  it  was. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  And  the  conference  stopped  that? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Yes ;  we  severed  the  relation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Were  you  the  editor  of  the  Tennessee  Methodist? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Yes. 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  see  in  the  last  number  of  your  paper  you  charge  the 
book  committee  with  being  a  party  to  a  crime  and  a  fraud. 

Mr.  HAYNES.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Do  yon  believe  that  any  member  of  the  book  committee 
was  party  to  a  fraud  * 

Mr.  HAYNEy.  I  do. 

Mr.  DENNY.  What  members  of  the  book  committee1? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  The  majority  of  the  book  committee,  whoever  they 
were.  I  do  not  pretend  to  know. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  we  got  any  money? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  No,  sir:  but  they  were  particeps  criminis  to  the  decep- 
tion practiced  npon  the  Senate  by  assenting  to  or  indorsing  the  de- 
ceptior  It  was  called  to  their  attention  before  the  General  Conference 
met. 

Mr.  DENNT.  Have  you  told  anybody  that  any  member  of  the  book 
committee  got  any  part  of  this  money1? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  No;  and  I  do  not  believe  that  they  did. 

Mr.  DENNY  You  have  also  charged  that  the  General  Conference  was 
party  to  a  fraud. 

Mr.  HAYNES.  No,  sir;  but  to  a  suppression  of  the  facts. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Did  not  the  committee  of  the  General  Conference  inves- 
tigate the  case' 

Mr.  HAYNES.  They  investigated  one  side  of  it.  They  investigated 
you  and  Dr.  Barbee,  and  they  distinctly  refused,  by  a  two-thirds  vote, 
to  hear  any  further  evidence. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Have  you  charged  that  any  official  of  the  church  or 
any  member  of  the  church  has  been  a  party  in  any  way  to  any  charges 
to  corrupt  the  Senate  or  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  in  the  passage 
of  this  bill? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  I  never  have. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Or  that  they  corrupted  anybody  in  connection  with  the 
passage  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  I  heard  that  charge. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Was  your  paper,  while  you  were  the  editor  of  it,  the  organ 
of  the  Tennessee  Conference? 


88  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Mr.  HAYNES.  It  was  at  one  time.    I  have  always  been  editor  of  it. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Did  the  conference  sever  the  connection  with  your  paper 
by  a  distinct  vote  and  after  a  discussion? 

Mr.  HAYNES.  It  did,  and  I  will  state  the  case. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  unnecessary  to  go  into  that  question,  and  the 
reporter  will  omit  Mr.  Haynes's  statement  on  that  point. 

STATEMENT  OF  MR.  E.  C.  REEVES. 

Mr.  BEEVES  said,  in  reference  to  a  suppression  by  a  two-thirds  vote 
of  any  further  evidence  by  the  committee  at  Baltimore  in  the  General 
Conference,  the  statement  made  by  Dr.  Haynes  on  information  is  abso- 
lutely and  unqualifiedly  false. 

REEXAMINATION  OF  REV.  DR.  BARBER 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  asked  Mr.  Smith  for  the  letters  which 
passed  between  you  and  Mr.  Stahlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes.    He  has  no  more  than  have  been  produced. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  mean  the  letters  and  telegrams  between 
Mr.  Stahlman  and  Barbee  and  Smith  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  want  the  letters  and  telegrams  which  passed 
between  Barbee  and  Smith  and  Mr.  Stahlman  about  the  time  of  the  pas- 
sage of  this  bill.  We  asked  for  them  yesterday,  both  from  Mr.  Smith 
and  from  Mr.  Stahlinaii. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Mr.  Smith  would  have  to  go  home  and  look  them  up. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Stahlman  said  he  had  some,  and  that  what  he 
did  not  have  he  could  get. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  know  about  that.  If  Mr.  Stahlman  has  the 
originals  or  copies  he  will  produce  them.  Mr.  Smith  understood  that 
you  excused  him  from  further  attendance. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  we  want  to  know  is  about  these  letters. 
Aside  from  that  we  do  not  want  to  see  Mr.  Smith.  He  has  charge  of 
the  letters  more  than  you  have. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  he  keeps  the  files. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  time  does  he  leave  the  city  to  day! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  His  train  goes  at  4  o'clock  in  the  afternoon.  He  under- 
stood that  you  wanted  to  identify  a  letter  to  Mr.  Kichardson.  I  wrote 
that  letter.  Mr.  Eichardson  wrote  to  me  personally  and  I  replied  to 
his  letter,  so  that  I  can  identify  it  better  than  Mr.  Smith  can;  therefore 
I  came  in  his  place. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  refer  to  the  letters  and  telegrams  between  Barbee 
and  Smith  and  Mr.  Stahlman. 

The  committee  took  a  recess  until  2  o'clock. 

AFTER   THE   RECESS. 

TESTIMONY  OF  J.  W.  BAKER. 

J.  W.  BAKER  sworn  and  examined : 
The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  your  business? 
Mr.  BAKER.  I  am  a  lawyer. 
The  CHAIRMAN.  Where  do  you  reside! 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  89 

Mr.  BAKER.  Nashville,  Tenn. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  had  any  relations  in  connection  with  this 
claim  of  the  M.  E.  Church  South  which  has  been  before  Congress? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  has  been  your  relation  to  it? 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  was  employed  by  Mr.  Stahlmau  and  Dr.  Barbee  to 
help  in  the  prosecution  of  that  claim  and  of  another  one  pending  on 
the  part  of  the  McMinnville  and  Manchester  Railroad.  I  was  a  member 
of  the  centennial  executive  committee,  and  I  came  on  here  in  the  interest 
of  the  Tennessee  centennial  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  in  the  passage 
of  a  bill  pending  before  Congress  appropriating  $120,000  for  the  Gov- 
ernment exhibit  at  Nashville.  At  that  time  Major  Stahlman  spoke  to 
me  about  the  Methodist  Publishing  House,  and  asked  me  to  assist  in 
that  claim. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  it  here  in  Washington  that  he  spoke  to  you 
about  it? 

Mr.  BAKER.  It  was  before  I  came  here. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  service,  if  any,  did  you  render  in  the  matter? 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  was  here  a  good  deal  of  three  sessions.  The  first  serv- 
ice which  I  rendered  was  to  take  the  report  which  had  been  made  by 
Senator  Morgan  in  1878  and  make  a  small  pamphlet  out  of  it.  I  epit- 
omized it  so  as  to  make  it  available  for  Major  Stahlman  to  send  all  over 
the  country.  Then  I  looked  up  the  authorities  on  the  question  of  the 
disloyalty  of  corporations,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  I  came  here  and 
appeared  before  your  committee  with  Major  Stahlman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  recollect  that  fact.  Did  you  address  the 
committee? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Mr.  Stahlman  made  most  of  the  arguments.  I  got  up 
and  made  some  corrections  of  what  he  had  said,  and  addressed  a  few 
remarks  to  the  committee.  Mr.  Burrows  asked  some  legal  questions, 
which  I  answered.  In  the  House  we  had  a  meeting  of  all  the  Southern 
Republicans  and  a  good  many  Northern  Republicans  who  were  known 
to  be  favorable  to  the  bill,  and  at  that  meeting  I  appeared  with  Major 
Stahlman  and  with  Mr.  Wise.  After  that  I  was  here  and  saw  a  good 
many  Senators  and  Representatives  and  explained  the  matter  to  them 
orally. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  that  you  were  employed  by  Barbee  & 
Stahlman? 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  was  first  asked  by  Stahlman  to  help  him,  and  he  said 
that  he  would  see  that  I  got  a  good  fee.  Afterwards  Dr.  Barbee  assured 
me  that  I  would  get  a  good  fee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  get  a  good  fee? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes;  but  not  so  large,  I  think,  as  I  should  have  had 
under  the  circumstances;  but  having  settled,  I  am  satisfied. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  have  any  contract  as  to  the  amount  of 
your  fee? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir.  I  did  not  know  that  any  contract  was  made  in 
regard  to  a  fee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  know  that  Stahlman  had  any  such 
contract? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  never  heard  of  it? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  did  you  first  hear  ot  it? 

Mr.  BAKER.  When  he  came  out  in  a  card  about  three  weeks  ago. 
He  had  always  assured  me  that  he  did  not  have  any  contract. 


90  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  ever  talk  with  him  about  the  contract? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Stahlman  always  stated  that  he  did  not  expect  to  get 
any  fee  out  of  the  matter. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Try  and  fix  the  date  when  you  were  employed. 

Mr.  BAKER.  It  was  some  time  in  the  fall  before  our  exposition  met. 
It  must  have  been  in  the  fall  of  1896. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  all  the  conversation  you  had  with  him  about 
his  fee  was  after  that? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes.  Of  course,  I  did  not  ask  Mr.  Stahlman  what  he 
was  going  to  get;  but  he  assured  me  time  and  again  that  he  was  not 
going  to  get  anything.  I  did  not  have  anything  to  do  with  what  he 
was  going  to  get. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  understood  from  him  that  the  work  on  his  part 
was  gratuitous? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes;  that  was  my  understanding.  When  the  question 
came  up  here  about  the  40  per  cent  fee  and  when  the  rumor  got  about, 
Senator  Pasco,  whom  I  have  known  all  my  life  (I  was  born  and  reared 
in  Florida),  came  to  me  and  asked  me  what  I  knew  about  it.  I  told  him 
that  I  did  not  believe  a  word  of  it.  I  said  that  Major  Stahlmau  had 
assured  me  that  he  did  not  have  any  contract,  that  i  was  to  be  paid  a 
reasonable  lee,  and  that  I  did  not  believe  the  book  agents  had  any 
right  to  make  any  such  contract  as  that,  and  had  no  idea  that  such  a 
contract  was  made.  Senator  Pasco  and  I  started  to  walk  down  to  his 
office,  but  I  suggested  to  him  that  I  thought  the  better  plan  would  be  for 
him  to  telegraph  to  Barbee  &  Smith  and  find  out  definitely  about  it,  and 
he  concluded  to  do  so  and  started  back.  That  was  Friday  evening.  Then 
he  suggested  that  as  the  bill  could  not  come  up  before  Monday,  the  best 
plan  would  be  to  write  to  Barbee  &  Smith;  and  he  went  to  his  office 
and  wrote  that  letter.  On  Monday  morning  he  showed  me  the  tele- 
gram which  he  had  received  from  Barbee  &  Smith. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  that  on  Monday  or  was  it  the  day  the  bill  was 
passed?  The  bill  was  passed  on  Tuesday. 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  think  it  was  on  Monday. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  was  on  Tuesday. 

Mr.  BAKER.  My  recollection  is  that  it  was  Monday,  but  I  may  be 
mistaken. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Senator  Pasco  told  you  of  the  answer  he  had  received? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes.  That  Friday  evening  I  told  Mr.  .Stahlman  what 
had  passed  between  Senator  Pasco  and  myself,  and  that  I  had  assured 
Senator  Pasco  that  no  contract  had  been  made,  that  no  percentage  was 
to  be  allowed,  and  that  no  such  contract  existed. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  Mr.  Stahlman  say  to  that? 

Mr.  BAKER.  He  did  not  say  anything.  I  told  him  at  the  time  that  if 
any  contract  did  exist  it  had  better  be  known,  and  that  he  had  better 
let  me  go  and  tell  Senator  Pasco  about  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  did  not  admit  to  you  that  there  was  any  contract? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Oh,  no,  sir.  After  that  telegram  was  received  I  de- 
nounced the  idea  of  any  such  thing  being  possible,  and  of  any  contract 
being  made.  After  I  went  home  to  Nashville  I  did  the  same  thing. 
1  said  that  it  was  a  slander,  an  outrage,  and  that  I  did  not  believe  a 
word  of  it.  I  had  no  idea  that  such  a  fee  was  to  be  paid  until  Stahl- 
man came  out  with  his  card.  He  paid  me  my  fee  and  said  that  he  paid 
it  out  of  the  money  which  the  Methodist  Publishing  House  had  allowed 
for  expenses.  He  asked  me  to  hold  up  the  check  until  the  next  morn- 
ing, as  he  did  not  know  whether  there  was  enough  money  left  in  the 
bank. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  he  give  you  his  personal  check? 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  91 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes ;  that  is  my  recollection. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Have  you  any  objection  to  stating  the  amount? 

Mr.  BAKER.  None  at  all.  I  was  in  two  cases.  At  the  same  time  he 
asked  me  to  help  him  in  the  McMinnville  and  Manchester  claim  against 
the  Government,  and  in  the  publishing  house  claim  he  also  employed 
me.  When  he  settled  with  me  he  gave  check  for  nine  thousand  six 
hundred  and  some  dollars  (exact  amount  not  remembered).  He  de- 
ducted about  $300  from  my  fee  on  account  of  some  indebtedness. 

Senator  PASOO.  Was  that  the  other  case  before  the  Committee  on 
Claims? 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  would  have  to  make  a  long  explanation  about  that. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  it  before  the  Committee  on  Claims? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  it  before  this  committee? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes.  It  was  involved  in  a  settlement  of  the  accounts  of 
the  United  States  and  Tennessee. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  was  part  of  the  claims  of  the  State  of  Tennessee? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes;  and  the  bill  was  amended  by  putting  this  claim 
on  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  did  you  get  on  account  of  the  book  concern? 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  do  not  know.  I  have  brought  the  receipt  with  me; 
here  it  is  [handing  the  receipt  to  the  chairman]. 

The  receipt  was  read,  and  is  as  follows: 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  22, 1898. 

I  hereby  agree  that  the  $10,000  paid  me  by  E.  B.  Stahlman  for  services  rendered 
and  expenses  incurred  on  account  of  the  claim  of  the  Book  Agents  of  the  M.E.  Church 
South  against  the  United  States  Government  shall  embrace  the  liquidation  of  all  dues 
and  demands  for  services  rendered  by  me  and  expenses  incurred  to  date  in  the  prose- 
cution of  the  claim  of  the  McMinnville  and  Manchester  Railroad  against  the  United 
States  Government,  which  claim  is  now  pending  in  Congress,  and  respecting  the 
prosecution  of  which  and  the  amount  to  be  paid  me  a  written  agreement  will  be 
made  in  the  event  said  Stahlman  shall  conclude  to  proceed  further  with  the  prose- 
cution of  said  claim. 

J.  W.  BAKER. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  have  any  partners  or  associates  in  that  fee 
business  ? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  did  not  pay  any  of  your  fee  out  to  anybody  else  ? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  pay  any  money  at  any  time  to  any  of  the 
officials  of  the  church? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Or  to  any  Senator  or  Member  of  Congress  or  public 
official? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Did  you  tell  Senator  Pasco  that  you  were 
employed  in  this  Methodist  Book  Concern  case,  and  that  you  expected 
to  be  paid? 

Mr.  BAKER.  I  think  that  when  the  question  of  compensation  came 
up,  and  when  Senator  Pasco  asked  me  about  the  matter,  I  told  him 
that  Barbee  had  promised  to  pay  me  a  reasonable  fee. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  said  Barbee  &  Smith. 

Mr.  BAKER.  Probably  so.  In  addition  to  that,  I  told  every  Senator 
and  Eepresentative  from  Tennessee,  and  I  think  they  all  understood  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  you  were  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  BAKER.  That  I  was  to  be  paid  a  fee.  I  am  not  a  Methodist,  I 
am  an  Episcopalian;  and  it  would  be  preposterous  for  me  to  say  1  was 
working  for  the  Methodist  Church. 


92  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Did  you  tell  anyone  >f  the  amount  which  you  expected 
to  receive? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir;  in  fact,  I  did  not  know  it. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  How  long  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  it  before 
you  received  your  compensation  ? 

Mr.  BAKER.    It  may  have  been  two  or  three  weeks. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Then  you  received  it  in  Nashville? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  There  was  no  Senator  deceived,  so  far  as  you  were 
concerned,  as  to  your  employment? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir;  in  fact,  1  told  very  few  Senators  about  it.  I 
think  that  the  only  Senators  who  asked  about  it  were  Senator  Pasco  and 
Senator  Bate,  and  I  think  I  told  both  of  them  that  I  expected  to  be  paid 
a  reasonable  fee. 

REEXAMINATION   OF   BEY.  MB.  BARBEE. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Here  is  what  purports  to  be  copy  of  a  letter 
from  Mr.  Eichardsou  to  you,  dated  January  1, 1898.  State  whether  you 
received  such  a  letter. 

Mr.  BARBEE  (after  examining  the  letter).  Yes,  sir;  that  is  right. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Here  is  the  copy  of  a  letter  dated  January  10, 
1898,  purporting  to  be  the  copy  of  a  letter  to  Mr.  Richardson,  without 
signature.  State  whether  that  is  the  copy  of  a  letter  which  you  wrote 
to  Mr.  Richardson. 

Mr.  BARBEE  (after  examining  the  letter).  Yes,  sir.  He  wrote  to  me 
personally. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  personal  letter  is  the  letter  of  the  1st  of  Janu 
ary  that  has  just  been  shown  you? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  the  other  is  the  reply  to  it? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  The  letter  of  January  1  contains  this  sentence: 
"  Please  write  me  what  interest  he  has  in  the  claim.  What  is  his  share 
in  it?"  [Meaning  Stahlman.]  Your  letter  of  the  10th  is  an  answer  to 
that  direct  inquiry? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  In  your  letter  of  the  10th  you  say: 

The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  if  in  the  filial  adjustment  it  shall  be  deemed 
proper  to  pay  Mr.  Stahlman  a  reasonable  compensation  for  his  services,  and  this 
compensation  shall  be  given  with  the  consent  of  the  proper  authorities  of  the  church, 
you,  I  am  sure,  will  agree  that  it  will  not  be  an  improper  thing  to  do. 

You  intended  to  be  understood  by  this  answer  that  there  was  no 
existing  agreement  at  that  time  with  Mr.  Stahlman? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No,  sir;  I  did  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  did  not  intend  Mr.  Richardson  to  infer 
that  the  matter  of  compensation  would  be  adjusted  after  the  bill  was 
finally  passed? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  No;  I  intended  him  to  infer  that  there  would  be  com- 
pensation. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Look  at  this  letter  of  the  9th  of  March  from 
Senator  Pasco  to  Messrs.  Barbee  and  Smith  and  state  whether  you 
received  it. 

Mr.  BARBEE  (after  examining  the  letter).  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  I  show  you  what  purports  to  be  copy  of  a 
letter  dated  March  29,  and  I  ask  you  whether  you  wrote  that  letter, 


METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  93 

and  whether  it  is  your  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  just  haiided 
to  you? 

Mr.  BARBEE  (after  examining  the  letter).  This  is  a  letter  that  we 
sent  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  made  answer  in  this  letter  to  his  letter  of 
March  9? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  That  is  what  I  suppose  we  did.  We  were  in  the  habit 
of  doing  the  polite  in  these  things. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  The  letter  which  I  have  handed  you  is  among 
the  number  handed  to  us  by  Dr.  Denny. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  wrote  this  letter,  but  I  am  trying  to  connect  it.  I 
can  not  tell  exactly  with  what  particular  letter  it  connects. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  I  wish  you  would  be  a  little  more  specific.  I 
want  to  know  whether  this  letter  of  March  29  is  answer  to  Senator 
Pasco's  letter  of  March  9;  and  if  it  is  not,  I  want  your  answer  to  that 
letter. 

Mr.  BARBEE  (after  examining  the  letter).  I  do  not  think  that  this 
letter  of  March  29  connects  at  all  with  the  letter  of  March  9.  Each 
one  is  an  independent  letter.  I  have  no  conscious  memory  that  the 
letter  of  the  29th  of  March  was  designed  as  an  answer  to  the  letter  of 
the  9th.  These  letters  were  sprung  out  of  the  conditions  at  that  time, 
after  we  had  seen  the  Congressional  Record. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  In  this  letter  of  March  9,  Senator  Pasco  writes 
you,  among  other  things: 

Your  telegram  in  response  to  my  letter  was  received  and  was  serviceable  to  me  in 
meeting  the  charge  which  had  been  made  by  some  malicious  persons  as  to  the  employ- 
ment of  claim  agents  and  attorneys  who  were  to  absorb  a  large  proportion  of  the 
funds  appropriated  for  the  publishing  house. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir;  and  Senator  Pasco  was  not  confining  himself 
to  the  40  per  cent. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  This  letter  was  written  to  you  before  you 
received  the  money  appropriated  by  the  bill.  What  answer  did  you 
make  to  that  suggestion  of  Senator  Pasco's  I  Did  you  write  and  tell 
him  that  there  had  been  an  agreement  to  pay  some  amount? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  we  answered  that  letter  at  all. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  do  not  know  whether  you  answered  it  or  not? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  do  not  recollect  whether  you  made  any 
answer  to  this  letter  of  Senator  Pasco's  of  the  9th  of  March? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  On  receiving  it,  would  you  not  naturally  have 
written  to  Senator  Pasco  and  advised  him  of  the  misapprehension  he 
was  probably  resting  under  on  account  of  your  first  telegram  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  know  that  I  would.  I  would  not  now,  assur- 
edly, because  I  do  not  see  any  very  great  difference. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Having  misled  him 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  would  not  admit  that  I  misled  him.  I  will  not  admit 
that  I  intended  to  mislead  him. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  saw  by  these  letters  that  he  was  evidently 
under  a  misapprehension,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  did  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  When  you  return  to  Nashville  will  you  look 
over  your  files  and  send  us  a  copy  of  your  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's 
letter  of  the  9th  of  March,  if  this  letter  of  the  29th  is  not  the  answer  to  it  ? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir;  if  we  made  another  answer  I  will  send  it 
with  pleasure. 

8.  Kep.  1416 7 


94  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  mean  if  you  made  another  answer  to  Sen- 
ator Pasco's  letter  of  March  9? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  My  letter  of  the  29th  is  not  an  answer  to  it,  I  know. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  What  brought  out  that  letter  of  the  29th  H 

Mr.  BARBEE.  What  we  saw  in  the  Congressional  Record. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  substance  of  what  was  in  the  Congressional 
Becord  was  stated  in  my  letter  of  the  9th. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  We  did  not  see  it. 

The  following  are  the  letters  referred  to : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  January  1,  1898. 
Rev.  J.  D.  BARBEE, 

Nashville,  Tenn. 

DEAR  BROTHER  BARBEE:  On  my  arrival  here  I  find  your  letter  inclosing  pamphlet 
of  Stahlman,  etc.  I  wrote  yon  from  home  before  I  left  there  in  regard  to  this 
matter.  I  only  write  now  to  acknowledge  your  letter  and  to  repeat  that  the  state- 
ment coming  from  any  source  that  I  am  opposed  to  your  claim,  or  that  I  have 
discouraged  its  payment  in  any  shape  or  form  is  false  and  untrue.  Stahlman  knows 
I  wrote  the  hill  which  passed  the  Senate  for  the  claim,  because  he  was  present  and 
saw  me  write  it.  Why  he  should  send  out  such  anonymous  "notes"  attacking  me 
is  apparent  to  my  mind. 

Please  write  me  what  interest  he  has  in  the  claim.    What  is  his  share  in  it? 
I  have  done  all  I  could  for  the  claim,  Brother  Barbee,  as  I  promised  you  I  would, 
and  if  the  time  comes  that  I  can  not  aid  it,  I  will  inform  you. 
Truly,  your  friend, 

JAMES  D.  RICHARDSON. 


JANUARY  3,  1898. 
Hon.  JAMES  D.  RICHARDSON, 

Member  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Your  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  addressed  to  our  Dr.  Barbee,  will  receive 
his  attention  on  his  return  to  the  city.     He  has  been  absent  for  a  week,  and  will  not 
return  earlier  than  the  last  of  this  week,  perhaps  later. 
Very  truly, 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 


JANUARY  10, 
Hon.  JAMES  D.  RICHARDSON, 

Member  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  MR.  RICHARDSON  :  Upon  my  return  home  I  find  your  letter  of  the  1st  instant, 
and  in  response  will  say  that  it  seems  to  me  you  are  taking  this  matter  too  much  to 
heart.  You  are  certainly  misconstruing  the  motives  which  caused  us  to  send  out  the 
circular  accompanied  by  the  note  of  which  you  complain. 

It  was  not  charged  in  either  the  circular  or  the  note  that  you  were  opposing  the 
claim.  The  circular  said  nothing  as  to  your  attitude,  while  the  note  simply  said 
yon  were  "taking  but  little  interest  in  an  effort  to  pass  our  bill  and  that  you  had  on 
more  than  one  occasion  said  and  done  things  calculated  to  very  much  discourage  our 
friends."  That  is  to  say,  that  you  had  suggested  obstacles  in  our  way  and  appar- 
ently magnified  them  without  signifying  a  ready  willingness  to  help  remove  them. 
That  was  about  what  Mr.  Stahlman  said  in  regard  to  your  attitude  when  he  came 
home  from  Washington  and  we  considered  it  a  serious  matter,  because  as  a  member 
from  Tennessee,  with  yonr  recognized  ability  as  a  parliamentarian  and  a  leader,  we 
felt  that  a  lack  of  active  support  from  you  would  hurt  us,  and  it  was  in  order  to 
secure  this  support  that  the  circular  and  note  were  sent  to  your  district. 

With  reference  to  the  share  or  interest,  if  any,  Mr.  Stahlman  may  have  in  this 
claim,  I  beg  you  to  talk  with  him.  He  is  in  Washington  and  can  give  you  all  the 
information  you  desire  on  the  subject.  Surely,  whether  he  has  a  pecuniary  interest 
in  the  matter  ought  not  to  have  a  bearing  on  the  merits  of  our  claim,  which  is 
admittedly  just,  and  which,  as  we  understand  it,  you  have  on  all  occasions  without 
qualification  signified  your  willingness  to  support. 

The  laborer  is  worthy  of  his  hire,  and  if  in  the  final  adjustment  it  shall  be  deemed 
proper  to  pay  Mr.  Stahlman  a  reasonable  compensation  for  his  services,  and  this 
compensation  shall  be  given  with  the  consent  of  the  proper  authorities  of  the  church, 
you,  I  am  sure,  will  agree  that  that  will  not  be  an  improper  thing  to  do.  The  claim 
was  placed  by  na  originally  in  the  hands  of  a  Washington  attorney.  For  reasons 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  95 

satisfactory  to  us,  and  entirely  satisfactory  to  oar  friends  then  in  the  Senate  and 
House,  we  refused  to  renew  the  arrangement  when  it  expired.  Surely  we  ought  not 
to  be  made  to  suffer  at  the  hands  of  our  Tennessee  Representatives  because  we 
declined  to  renew  an  arrangement  with  this  Washington  attorney  and  instead 
accepted  the  proffered  assistance  of  a  resident  of  Tennessee  and  a  friend  and  member 
of  the  church,  one  who,  even  as  early  as  1891,  and  before  the  agreement  with  the 
Washington  attorney  had  expired,  rendered  valuable  assistance  in  our  endeavor  to 
pass  the  bill.  Mr.  Stahlman  was  as  earnest  in  his  endeavor  to  help  us  then  as  he  is 
now,  the  only  difference  being  that  formerly  much  of  his  time  was  occupied  in  other 
pursuits,  while  now  he  has  time  which  he  can  call  his  own  and  a  good  part  of  which 
during  his  sojourn  in  Washington  he  has  seen  fit  to  devote  largely  to  our  interests. 
I  will  take  the  liberty  of  sending  Mr.  Stahlman  your  letter  that  he  may  talk  with 
you  on  the  subject. 

Yours,  truly,  , 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  March  9, 1898. 
Messrs.  BARBEB  &  SMITH, 

Agents  Methodist  Publishing  House,  Nashville,  Term. 

DEAR  SIRS  :  Yoxir  telegram  in  response  to  my  letter  was  received  and  was  service- 
able to  me  in  meeting  the  charge  which  had  been  made  by  some  malicious  persons  as 
to  the  employment  of  claim  agents  and  attorneys  who  were  to  absorb  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  funds  appropriated  for  the  publishing  house. 

I  succeeded  in  calling  up  the  bill  yesterday  afternoon,  and,  as  you  have  doubtless 
been  already  informed  by  telegraph,  it  was  passed  after  a  few  hours'  debate ;  and 
from  conversations  I  have  had  with  Senators  who  are  on  intimate  terms  with  the 
President,  I  feel  sure  there  will  be  no  delay  in  his  approval. 

It  is  but  just  that  I  should  say  that  Mr.  J.  W.  Baker  has  given  the  matter  his  close 
attention  for  some  weeks  past  and  has  rendered  diligent,  intelligent,  and  effective 
services  in  behalf  of  the  bill. 
Yours,  very  truly, 

S.  PASCO. 

Your  telegram  of  this  date  has  been  received,  and  is  highly  appreciated. 


Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Do  you  know  J.  W.  Baker,  of  Nashville! 

Mr.  BARBEB.  Yes. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  him  at  any  time 
before  the  passage  of  the  bill  or  immediately  afterwards  as  to  any  com- 
pensation that  he  was  to  get? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Ko,  sir;  I  do  not  recollect  having  had  any  conversation 
with  him  about  it. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Did  you  ever  have  any  understanding  with  him  that 
he  was  to  have  compensation  f 

Mr.  BARBEE.  There  was  no  understanding  that  we  were  to  give  him 
any  compensation.  "What  meaning  you  attach  to  "understanding"  is 
another  question.  I  always  had  the  impression,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
that  Major  Stahlman  would  pay  him,  because  he  had  him  in  his  employ- 
ment; but  that  is  only  my  impression. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  says  that  both  Stahlmau  and  you  told  him  he 
should  be  paid. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  If  I  ever  told  him  such  a  thing  I  have  forgotten  it, 
because,  certainly,  Stahlman's  agreement  with  us  was  positively  and 
explicitly  that  his  fee  was  contingent;  that  he  was  to  take  the  whole 
risk  and  expense  of  the  enterprise,  and  that  it  was  to  cost  us  nothing 
on  any  account.  That  was  our  agreement  with  Stahlman,  and  I  can 
not,  therefore,  have  promised  Baker  anything  myself.  He  may  be 
under  the  impression  that  as  we  were  so  intimately  connected  in  the 
business,  I  actually  promised  him  compensation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  He  says  that  he  did  not  know  Stahlman  had  a  con- 
tract, but  that  in  the  end  he  was  paid  by  Stahlman. 


96  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  ever  inform  Baker  of  that  contract? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  do  not  recollect  whether  I  ever  had  any  conversation 
with  him  about  it  or  not. 

Senator  PASCO.  He  says  you  promised  to  see  that  he  was  paid,  and 
I  suppose  that  is  affirmative! 

Mr.  BARBEE.  I  have  no  recollection  at  all  of  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  not  yet  been  able  to  get  the  correspondence 
between  you  and  Mr.  Stahlman  in  the  few  days  preceding  the  passage 
of  the  bill. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  There  was  correspondence  then,  as  there  had  been  at 
various  other  times,  continuously  and  frequently. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  want  copies  of  that  correspondence. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  If  the  correspondence  is  in  our  possession  at  all  it  is  at 
Nashville,  and  Mr.  Smith  has  gone  home  with  the  injunction  to  look  over 
the  files,  and  if  he  finds  it  to  send  it  to  you.  Mr.  Stahlman  said  that 
he  thought  he  could  reproduce  it  himself. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  he  does  that  will  be  as  well;  but  he  has  not  yet 
done  so. 

Mr.  Stahlman  was  sent  for  to  come  to  the  committee  room. 


TESTIMONY  OF  E.  B.  STAHLMAN— Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  find  the  correspondence  which  occurred 
between  you  and  Barbee  and  Smith  about  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
the  bill — immediately  preceding  its  passage  and  immediately  after  I 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  Mri  Chairman,  I  did  not.  I  keep  some  of  my 
correspondence  of  a  general  nature  in  one  file  and  some  of  it  in 
another  file.  I  think  I  have  the  correspondence  you  allude  to  at  home. 
I  am  almost  sure  that  I  have.  I  can  state  the  substance  of  it  now  for 
the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  rather  have  the  correspondence  itself. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Eeally  I  do  not  recall  exactly  what  correspondence 
took  place  at  that  particular  time,  if  any. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  were  in  telegraphic  correspondence,  were  you 
not;  and  also  in  correspondence  by  letter? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  would  like  to  get  the  letters  and -telegrams  that 
passed  between  you  and  Barbee  and  Smith  for  some  days  preceding  the 
passage  of  the  bill  and  for  some  days  subsequently. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  If  the  committee  will  permit  me  I  will  state  now 
what  my  recollection  is  in  regard  to  that  matter.  If  the  correspond- 
ence is  anywhere  to  be  found  I  will  send  it  to  the  committee  when  I  get 
home,  or  if  I  find  it  here.  I  was  in  pretty  constant  correspondence  with 
these  gentlemen  all  the  time.  They  relied  upon  me  as  their  attorney 
and  representative.  Dr.  Barbee  is  my  neighbor.  He  lives  not  more 
than  60  feet  from  my  home — -just  across  the  way.  He  knows  all  about 
me  and  my  family  relations  and  has  for  years.  He  was  my  pastor  for 
a  number  of  years.  He  therefore  conferred  freely  with  me.  I  believe 
that  he  had  confidence  in  me  and  relied  upon  me  to  give  him  advice 
and  information  respecting  the  matters  which  were  going  on  here.  My 
recollection  is  that  with  reference  to  this  rumor  of  an  exorbitant  fee  I 
wrote  him 

The  CHAIRMAN.  About  what  date? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  the  Senate  passed  the  bill  about  the  8th  of 
March,  so  it  must  have  been  somewhere  about  the  4th,  5th,  6th,  7th,  or 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH.  97 

8th  of  March  that  I  wrote  to  him.  I  have  quite  a  distinct  recollection 
that  I  telegraphed  to  him.  I  telegraphed  to  him  that  there  was  a  rumor 
that  I  had  a  contract  with  the  book  agents  for  40  per  cent;  and  my 
recollection  is  that  I  telegraphed  him  that  if  any  such  inquiry  was 
received  he  should  refer  Senators  who  inquired  to  the  correspondence 
with  Mr.  Richardson. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Had  you  seen  that  correspondence? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes.  Barbee  and  Smith  had  advised  me  of  that 
correspondence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Had  they  sent  you  a  copy  of  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  they  had.  I  am  sure  they  had.  That  was 
with  reference  to  the  charge  that  there  was  a  fee  to  be  paid.  I  think 
that  probably  I  may  have  afterwards  telegraphed  them  or  written  to 
them  that  I  felt  they  would  be  justified  in  denying  the  charge  of  an 
exorbitant  fee.  I  did  it  conscientiously,  for  I  did  not  believe  the  fee 
was  exorbitant,  nor  do  I  believe  so  yet. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  bring  your  correspondence  relating  to 
this  subject  to  this  city  with  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  it. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  you  bring  it  to  the  city  with  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  You  mean  here,  now  ? 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Yes. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  brought  a  good  deal  of  correspondence  of  a  general 
kind,  my  purpose  in  bringing  it  being  to  show  the  work  which  I  had 
done. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  You  knew  that  this  aspect  of  the  subject  was 
under  investigation.  Why  did  you  not  bring  the  correspondence  in 
reference  to  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  may  have  it. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Have  you  not  looked  for  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  have  been  looking  for  it,  but  I  was  called  away. 
My  secretary  was  absent  until  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  before  I  came  to 
the  committee  room,  and  I  had  no  time  to  look  for  it.  What  time  I  did 
look  for  it  1  did  not  find  it.  I  do  not  say  that  there  was  no  correspond- 
ence. I  say  there  may  have  been,  and  doubtless  there  was.  I  was 
asked  no  question  yesterday  as  to  this  correspondence  with  Barbee  & 
Smith. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  not  Mr.  Barbee  or  Mr.  Smith  ask  you  about 
the  correspondence? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  They  asked  me  if  I  knew  about  such  correspondence. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  When  did  they  ask  you? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  An  hour  ago. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Did  they  ask  yon  yesterday? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  If  they  did,  I  do  not  recollect;  but  they  may  have. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  said  yesterday  that  you  had  a  large  amount  of 
correspondence  with  you,  and  that  you  would  search  for  it  and  bring 
it  here. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  Chairman  will  recollect  that  yesterday  I  was 
asked  whether  or  not  I  would  be  in  town  to  day,  the  purpose  of  the 
inquiry  being  that  if  I  were  needed  I  would  be  expected  to  be  here.  I 
stated  to  the  Chairman  that  I  would  be  here,  but  there  was  no  specific 
request  that  I  should  look  over  volumes  of  correspondence  running 
through  three  or  four  years. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  only  want  the  correspondence  immediately  pre- 
ceding and  immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  bill. 


98  METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  know.  I  think  I  can  state  the  substance  of  the  cor- 
respondence, but  I  think  I  can  find  it. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Be  good  enough  to  search  for  it  and  give  it  to  us  if 
you  can  find  it.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  state  it  and  have  it  after- 
wards produced. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  That  is  for  the  pleasure  of  the  committee  to  deter- 
mine. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Some  of  you  gentlemen  must  have  the  correspond- 
ence. There  is  no  doubt  about  that.  You  seem  to  have  everythingelse, 
and  you  would  hardly  omit  that.  But  it  is  not  here,  as  I  understand. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  will  say,  as  I  said  yesterday,  that  there  was  certain 
correspondence  which  passed  between  Barbee  &  Smith  and  myself 
respecting  this  matter  that  I  did  not  think  it  proper  for  anybody  to 
see.  For  that  reason  I  put  some  of  the  correspondence  in  separate  pri- 
vate files  so  that  meddlesome  people  could  not  look  over  what  I  did. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Have  you  a  letterpress  book  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir;  I  have  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  How  do  you  preserve  copies  of  the  letters 
which  you  write?  • 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  If  I  write  them  myself  I  preserve  no  copies.  If  my 
secretary  writes  them  he  preserves  carbon  copies. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  mean  that  you  do  not  intend  to  produce  this 
correspondence  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  at  all,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  prepared  to  produce 
everything  that  passed,  although  there  are  some  things  which  I  do  not 
think  are  matters  of  interest  to  this  committee  in  this  investigation, 
because  they  relate  to  my  views  of  individual  Members  and  Senators. 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  to  you  that,  in  my  judgment,  I  had  correspond- 
ence with  Barbee  and  Smith  at  or  about  that  time,  as  we  did  all  along 
during  the  entire  proceedings. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  wish  you  would  try  and  find  this  correspondence. 
If  you  can  not,  come  and  tell  us  that  you  can  not.  You  can  tell  us  on 
Monday  morning.  You  said  you  would  give  us  a  statement  of  the 
expenditure  of  the  money. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  know  but  that  you  ought  to  do  it  with  the 
understanding  that  the  committee  will  use  it  or  not  use  it,  as  it  may 
see  fit.  We  do  not  want  to  ask  you  improperly  to  disclose  any  of  your 
private  affairs,  but  I  think  it  would  be  more  satisfactory  if  we  could 
say  that  you  made  us  a  satisfactory  statement  of  where  the  money  went. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  have  it  go  on  record. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  stated  yesterday  that  it  was  rather  an  exhibi- 
tion of  a  man's  private  business  which  might  not  be  pleasant. 

Senator  PA  SCO.  The  opinion  expressed  by  the  committee  was  not  to 
expose  your  private  business  at  all. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Bring  us  on  Monday  morning  a  statement  of  the 
expenditures,  and  we  will  look  it  over. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Very  well;  and  in  the  meantime  I  will  look  for  these 
letters  and  telegrams  if  necessary,  but  for  reasons  which  must  be 
apparent,  I  ought  not  to  be  asked  to  do  this. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  and  if  you  can  not  find  them  we  will  ask  you 
as  to  the  general  features  of  the  correspondence. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  telegraph  office  keeps  copies  of  messages  that 
are  sent  and  received  for  a  sufficient  length  of  time  to  get  them  if  the 
originals  can  not  be  found. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  can  get  copies  of  all  the  telegrams.    If 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  99 

we  should  ask  the  telegraph  office  for  your  telegrams  we  could  not  get 
them ;  but  if  you  find  you  have  not  got  copies  of  them,  you  can  go  to 
the  telegraph  office  and  get  copies. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Mr.  Barbee  and  you  together  can  get  copies  of  the 
telegrams  which  he  sent  and  which  you  sent.  That  may  save  some 
delay  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  do  that,  and  will  take  pleas- 
ure in  doing  it, 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Who  employed  J.  W.  Baker  in  this  case? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  did. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  Dr.  Barbee 
indicating  that  he  had  employed  Mr.  Baker  or  that  he  expected  to  pay 
him? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  In  reference  to  this  Eichardson  correspondence,  do 
you  know  who  wrote  the  letter  from  Barbee  and  Smith  to  Mr.  Richardson  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Barbee  and  Smith  wrote  it.  Barbee  and  Smith 
advised  me  practically  about  everything.  They  had  confidence  in  me. 
They  were  a  thousand  miles  away  and  I  think,  therefore,  they  conferred 
with  me  and  I  advised  them  what  they  ought  to  say  to  Mr.  Eichardson. 
I  talked  to  Mr.  Eichardson  about  it.  Mr.  Eichardson  seemed  to  be 
perfectly  satisfied,  and  there  was  nothing  said  about  the  matter  after 
that  in  the  House  at  all  that  I  am  aware  of. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  recollect  the  date  of  Mr.  Barbee's  letter  to 
Mr.  Eichardson?  We  have  a  copy  purporting  to  be  the  10th  of 
January. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN  I  have  no  doubt  that  is  the  correct  date.  It  was 
two  or  three  weeks  before  the  bill  was  passed  by  the  House. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  Barbee  &  Smith  sent  you  a  copy  of  their  letter 
so  that  you  should  be  advised? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  Barbee  &  Smith  know  anything  about  Mr. 
Baker  being  employed  by  you  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  They  knew  that  Baker  was  helping  me. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  ever  tell  Mr.  Baker  about  the  amount  which 
you  were  to  get  prior  to  or  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  bill? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  He  knew  nothing  about  it,  then? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  a  thing.  I  considered  that  that  was  my  busi- 
ness. I  engaged  Mr.  Baker's  services,  and  I  felt  that  it  was  no  matter  of 
concern  to  him  what  I  was  to  get. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  I  would  like  the  committee  to  hear  evidence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  is  it! 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  want  to  offer  some  proof  and  to  introduce  an  act  of 
Congress  here  as  evidence  showing  that  35  percent  of  an  appropriation 
had  been  regarded  as  a  proper  fee  in  one  of  these  Indian  cases. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  take  notice  of  that  without  you  putting  it 
in  evidence. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  We  desire  to  offer  the  evidence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  do  not  care  about  publishing  that  in  our  pro- 
ceedings. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  desire  to  offer  proof  to  show  that  in  another  one  of 
these  cases  an  attorney's  fee  of  $900,000  was  paid  out  of  an  appropria- 
tion of  $3,078,000. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  case  was  that? 


100  METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  believe  it  was  in  the  Choctaw  and  Chickasaw  claim. 
Then  I  desire  also  toofl'er  proof  that  in  the  cotton  claims  Mr.  Thompson 
and  Mr.  Mobley,  attorneys  in  the  case,  \vere  paid  a  large  fee,  and  that 
the  amount  appropriated  was  $88,104.  I  got  the  figures  from  the 
Treasury  Department  yesterday. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  make  these  suggestions  to  show  that  Mr.  Stahl- 
man's  fee  was  reasonable? 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Yes;  I  would  like  to  have  the  record  show  that  we  offer 
to  make  this  proof. 

Senator  PASCO.  We  have  no  right  to  investigate  those  claims. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  will  let  the  record  show  that  you  made  an  offer 
to  put  this  evidence  in,  and  you  can  put  it  in  your  brief. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Then  I  propose  to  tender  evidence  showing  the  amount 
of  fees  in  cotton  cases. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  are  not  going  into  that  thing.  There  is  no  par- 
ticular objection,  but  it  will  be  just  as  good  for  you  to  mention  the  proof 
in  your  brief. 

Adjourned  until  Monday,  June  27, 1898. 

The  following  additional  copies  of  correspondence  and  telegrams 
were  presented  to  the  committee  and  were  put  in  evidence: 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  April  IS,  1894. 

Articles  of  agreement  between  Barbee  &  Smith,  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South,  and  E.  B.  Stahlraan,  witness: 

First.  That  the  said  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents,  etc.,  have  given  the  said  E.  B. 
Stahlman  po\ver  of  attorney  to  prosecute  their  claim  before  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States  for  the  use  and  abuse  of  the  publishing  honse  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Cburch  South  by  the  armies  of  the  United  States  during  the  civil  war,  1861-1865. 
Second.  That  the  said  Barbee  &  Smith,  book  agents,  etc.,  agree  to  pay  the  said 
E.  B.  Stahlman  the  eum  of  $50,000,  provided  that  the  above  said  Congress  shall 
appropriate  $288,000  for  the  aforesaid  purpose;  and  if  a  less  sum  should  be  appro- 
priated the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  shall  receive  a  less  amount  for  his  services,  in  pro- 
portion to  the  amount  which  shall  be  appropriated. 

Third.  That  nothing  shall  be  paid  to  the  said  E.  B.  Stahlman  for  his  services  out 
of  any  funds  whatever,  except  the  aforesaid  appropriation;  and  if.no  appropriation 
should  be  made  by  the  aforesaid  Congress  for  the  aforesaid  purpose,  then  in  that 
case  no  compensation  shall  be  paid  to  the  aforesaid  E.  B.  Stahlman  for  his  services. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH, 

Bool:  Agents,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South. 
E.  B.  STAHLMAN. 


NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  June  13, 1898. 
Jos.  W.  FISHER,  Esq., 

Superintendent  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company,  Nashville,  Tenn. 
DEAR  SIR:  On  the  7th  of  March,  1898,  we  sent  the  following  telegrams  in  the  order 
named,  to  wit : 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  7, 1898. 
Hon.  S.  PASCO, 

United  States  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Your  letter  of  the  5th  received.  The  statement  is  untrue  and  you  are  authorized 
to  deny  it. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 

NASHVILLE,  TKNN.,  March  7, 1898. 
Hon.  S.  PASCO, 

United  Slates  Senate,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Have  asked  Mr.  Stahlman  to  call  at  once  to  see  yon.  He  is  a  gentleman  upon 
whose  statements  yon  may  implicitly  rely.  He  is  our  friend  and  neighbor  and  offi- 
cial member  of  our  church,  whose  interest  in  our  behalf  reaches  beyond  and  above 
pecuniary  considerations. 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  101 

What  we  desire  to  ascertain  is  the  hour  that  each  of  these  telegrams  were  received 
by  the  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company  in  this  city  for  transmission  to  Senator 
Pasco ;  and  we  desire  also  to  ascertain  the  hour  each  of  these  telegrams  were  deliv- 
ered to  Senator  Pasco  in  Washington.  Any  expense  in  order  to  secure  this  informa- 
tion we  are  willing  to  pay.  Shall  be  glad  to  have  your  response  as  early  to-morrow 
morning  as  practicable. 

Yours,  truly,  BARBEB  &  SMITH,  Boole  Agents. 


NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  June  14, 1898. 
Messrs.  BARBEK  &  SMITH. 

DEAR  SIRS:  The  first  message  referred  to  in  your  communication  was  filed  at  this 
office  at  10.31  a.  in.  March  7  and  delivered  at  Washington  at  12.43  p.  m.  (or  11.43 
a.  m.  our  time),  W.  Jeffers,  a  Senate  employee,  receipting  for  it. 

The  second  message  was  filed  here  at  10.47  a.  m.  March  7  and  delivered  in  Wash- 
ington at  1.15  p.  m.  (or  12.15  p.  m.  our  time),  J.  B.  Lloyd,  a  Senate  employee, 
receipting  for  it. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  when  the  messages  reached  Senator  Pasco,  as  personal 
delivery  is  made  by  Senate  officials,  our  messengers  not  being  allowed  in  Senate 
Chamber. 

Kespectfully,  Jos.  W.  FISHER, 

Manager  Western  Union  Telegraph  Company. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  March  7,  1898. 
BARBEE  &  SMITH, 

Publishing  House,  Nashville,  Tenn.: 

Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Paaco'a  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee,  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I 
would  like  to  hear  from  you  also.  In  my  judgment  if  true  it  will  endanger  the  bill. 

WM.  B.  BATE. 

MARCH  7,  1898. 
Senator  W.  B.  BATE,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

Wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  morning  as  follows :  "  The  statement  ia  untrue  and 
you  are  hereby  authorized  to  deny  it." 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 


BRYAN,  TEX.,  December  10,  1897. 
Senator  W.  B.  BATE,  Washington,  D.  C. 

(Care  James  Compton,  superintendent,  Nashville,  Tenn.): 

Your  telegram  mailed  me  here.    Confer  with  Stahlman,  who  understands  case 
thoroughly  and  has  full  authority. 

J.  D.  BARBEE. 


BRYAN,  TEX.,  December  10, 1897. 
Maj.  E.  B.  STAHLMAN, 

Normandie  Hotel,  Washington,  D.  C. 

(Care  James  Compton,  superintendent,  Nashville,  Tenn.): 

Sent  following  to  Bate :  "  Confer  with  Stahlman,  who  understands  case  and  has 
full  authority." 

J.  D.  BARBEE. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  0.,  June  27, 1898. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Present,  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Fairbanks,  Pasco,  and  Clay. 

TESTIMONY  OF  E.  B.  STAHLMAN— Continued. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  bring  up  the  statement  of  your  account? 
Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir;  I  did. 

Mr.  COL  YAK  (counsel).  Let  me  see  itj  have  you  got  it  completed  f 
Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir. 


102  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  received  the  several  dispatches  which  you 
have  handed  me,  and  in  looking  them  over  I  notice  that  you  seem  to 
have  given  some  direction  to  Barbee  and  Smith  as  to  what  they  should 
do  in  case  of  a  certain  inquiry.  State  whether  this  correspondence  at 
and  about  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  bill  was  under  your  general 
direction  ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir;  it  was. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  give  them  directions  as  to  what  answer 
they  should  make? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  in  all  cases.  You  may  notice  that  it  was  hur- 
ried and  I  gave  some  general  advice  as  to  what  should  be  said. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  These  copies  are  correct? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  They  are  absolutely  correct. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  undertook  to  direct  the  whole  of  this  transaction  1 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  undertook  to  advise. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  were  the  attorney,  and  they  followed  your 
advice  as  a  rule,  did  they  not? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  they  did. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  account  which  you  have  handed  me  and  which 
you  say  you  desire  to  be  considered  personal,  and  do  not  wish  to  have 
put  in  the  record — state  why  you  handed  it  to  me. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  For  the  sole  purpose  of  satisfying  this  committee 
that  thepe  was  not  a  dollar  of  the  money  used  to  corrupt  anybody  con- 
nected with  Congress,  and  that  not  a  dollar  was  used  or  paid  to  any- 
body who  was  instrumental  in  causing  me  to  be  employed  to  prosecute 
the  claim. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  see  that  you  have  charged  Mr.  Baker  with  $10,000. 
He  was  the  lawyer  who  appeared  before  the  committee? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  And  that  payment  was  for  his  services  in  the  case? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir;  and  I  prepared  the  receipt  which  he  signed 
for  the  $10,000  and  which  has  been  put  in  evidence.  After  the  paper 
had  been  prepared  I  said  to  him,  "Captain,  I  have  been  worrying 
about  other  matters  in  Washington,  and  I  have  been  paying  your 
expenses  all  the  way.  I  am  absolutely  tired  of  Washington  and  I  do 
not  think  I  will  go  back  again.  This  is  a  pretty  big  fee  which  I  am 
paying  you  and  I  think  I  ought  to  be  released  from  any  obligation  with 
reference  to  the  other  matter; "and  he  said,  "Yes." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  the  other  matter? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  was  embraced  in  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Ten- 
nessee against  the  United  States.  It  was  the  claim  of  the  McMinnville 
and  Manchester  Railroad,  the  question  being  whether  that  claim 
belonged  to  the  State  or  to  the  railroad.  We  wanted  to  get  it  in  such 
a  shape  that  the  railroad  company  should  have  the  privilege  of  trying 
to  show  whether  or  not  the  claim  belonged  to  it  or  to  the  State. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Has  it  been  adjusted? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  has  not  been.  After  I  had  shown  this  receipt  to 
Captain  Baker  I  said  to  him  as  already  stated,  "I  am  so  worn  out  and 
tired  of  Washington  that  I  do  not  believe  that  I  will  ever  go  to  Wash- 
ington again  and  I  would  like  to  be  relieved  of  any  obligation  to  you 
with  reference  to  this  matter.  I  have  paid  your  expenses  and  you  have 
had  very  little  work  to  do."  He  said,  "That  is  right."  I  said,  "If, 
later  on,  I  should  conclude  to  go  on  and  undertake  to  do  anything 
about  it,  let  your  compensation  be  a  matter  of  agreement  between  us." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  considered  that  you  paid  $10,000  for  his  serv- 
ices in  both  cases? 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  103 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  see  that  you  have  an  item  of  $2,500  paid  to  Sarn 
Donalson.  That  was  for  the  same  purpose! 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Also  $700  for  expenses  to  Sam  Donalson  t 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes.  He  said,  "I  have  incurred  a  great  many 
expenses,  and  you  ought  to  allow  me  something  for  them." 

The  CHAIRMAN.  These  other  items  in  the  statement  are  purely  per- 
sonal ? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Purely. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  notice  that  in  a  dispatch  to  Barbee  &  Smith 
themselves  you  referred  to  a  letter  which  "should  reach  you  by  special 
delivery  to-morrow  morning."  Have  you  a  copy  of  that  letter? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  have  not.  If  the  letter  is  in  existence  it  is  with 
the  originals  and  the  telegrams.  I  have  neither  those  telegrams  nor 
that  letter.  There  is  a  certain  kind  of  correspondence,  as  previously 
stated,  which  I  did  not  put  into  my  regular  file. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  say  you  have  not  got  this  letter  t 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No,  sir;  I  have  not. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  There  is  a  hiatus  between  the  9th  and  the  29th 
of  March.  Can  you  explain  it? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  think  I  can  explain  that  discrepancy.  Barbee  & 
Smith  did  not  know  anything  at  all  about  the  debate  in  the  Senate. 
They  had  not  seen  the  record  of  the  proceedings.  The  first  thing  they 
knew  was  when  they  got  a  copy  of  the  Record  on  or  about  the  28th  of 
March,  and  then  they  concluded  to  write  a  letter  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  had  been  already  paid  your  money  then? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes;  I  was  paid  on  the  21st. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  your  dispatch  of  the  6th  of  March  you  referred 
to  a  letter  which  "  should  reach  you  to-morrow  morning  by  special 
delivery."  That  letter  we  have  not  got. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  No. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  But  you  did  write  a  letter! 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Barbee  &  Smith  said  if  they  had  anything  else 
they  would  send  it  on. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  There  was  some  correspondence,  as  before  stated, 
which  did  not  get  into  my  regular  file. 

Adjourned  until  Friday,  July  1,  1898. 


104  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  July  1, 1898. 

The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present:  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Warren,  Fairbanks,  Pasco, 
Stewart,  and  Clay. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  committee  has  assembled  this  morning  to  see 
whether  there  is  anything  further  to  be  heard  in  the  way  of  evidence. 

ADDITIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  EEV.  DE.  BARBER 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  The  other  day  the  chairman  gave  to  wit- 
nesses the  privilege  to  correct  their  testimony  or  to  explain  it.  Dr. 
Barbee  desires  now  to  make  an  explanation  of  some  points  to  which  he 
testified — under  oath,  of  course — and  I  ask  the  privilege  of  introducing 
it  if  it  be  the  pleasure  of  the  committee. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  mean  to  correct  his  testimony! 

Mr.  GARLAND.  To  explain  it  as  to  some  points. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  would  suggest  that  Dr.  Barbee  come  in  and  state 
to  the  committee  what  he  has  to  say,  and  the  committee  can  determine 
afterwards  whether  it  is  pertinent. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Here  is  a  short  statement,  of  hardly  two  pages,  of  an 
explanation  which  Dr.  Barbee  desires  to  present,  if  the  committee 
please — under  oath,  of  course,  and  subject  to  any  examination  that  the 
committee  may  see  proper  to  make. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  there  anything  which  he  wishes  to  add  orally  to 
his  testimony? 

Mr.  GARLAND.  No,  sir;  he  wishes  to  make  an  explanation  of  certain 
statements  which  he  has  made  before,  and  he  wishes  to  do  so  under 
oath. 

The  CHAIRMAN  (to  Mr.  Barbee).  I  understand  it  is  your  desire  to 
offer  this  statement,  which  has  been  handed  to  the  committee,  as  under 
oath,  and  the  same  as  if  you  had  made  it  orally? 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

The  statement  was  put  in  evidence,  as  follows: 

As  explanatory  of  my  testimony,  concerning  the  letter  of  Senator 
Pasco,  addressed  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  Nashville,  Tenn.,  bearing  date  of 
March  5,  1898.  and  the  telegram  sent  by  Barbee  &  Smith  to  Senators 
Pasco  and  Bate  on  March  7, 1898,  I  would  beg  to  submit  the  following 
statement,  under  oath  : 

1.  That  we  believed  our  claim  against  the  United  States  for  the  occu- 
pancy, use,  and  damage  of  the  publishing  house  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  South  during  the  late  war  between  the  States  was 
a  just  and  equitable  claim,  and  lay  as  a  legal  obligation  upon  the  United 
States  Government. 

2.  The  claim  was  presented  to  Congress  soon  after  the  late  war  and 
pressed  upon  the  attention  of  this  honorable  body  for  twenty-five  years 
afterwards,  with  no  increasing  probability  of  a  favorable  result,  finally, 
until  Maj.  E.  B.  Stahlman  became  our  attorney. 

3.  The  book  committee  finally  employed  Mr.  E.  B.  Stahlman,  with 
power  of  an  attorney,  to  manage  the  case  and  procure  an  appropriation 
by  Congress  in  our  behalf,  if  he  could.    It  was  agreed  to  pay  him  a 
contingent  fee  of  35  per  cent  of  whatever  amount  he  might  obtain,  he 
bearing  the  whole  expense  of  the  undertaking. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  105 

4.  While  we  believed  that  Senator  Pasco,  in  his  letter  of  the  5th  of 
March,  asked  for  no  information,  but  only  a  denial  that  we  were  to  pay 
our  attorney  40  per  cent  contingent  fee,  yet,  allowing  that  he  did  seek 
to  know  whether  or  not  we  were  to  pay  an  exorbitant  fee,  of  any  amount, 
I  do  not  believe  that  50  or  even  75  per  cent  would  have  been  an  exces- 
sive fee,  for  50  or  even  25  per  cent  remaining  to  the  church  was  more 
than  many  of  us  had  hope  of  recovering.    Not  that  we  doubted  the  jus- 
tice of  our  claim,  but  because  we  had  lost  all  hope  of  ever  obtaining  our 
own.     Therefore  anything  was  better  than  nothing. 

5.  Our  first  telegram  to  Senator  Paseo,  March  7,  was  designed  to  deny 
that  we  were  to  pay  Mr.  Stahlman  40  per  cent.    That  was  all  we  meant 
and  what  we  meant,  but  if  it  be  contended  that  Senator  Pasco  meant  to 
inquire  concerning  any  exorbitant  fee,  then  our  answer  was  correct,  for 
35  per  cent  was  not  exorbitant  but  reasonable. 

6.  Fearing  Senator  Pasco  might  misinterpret  our  telegram  to  mean 
that  no  commission  whatever  was  to  be  paid  Mr.  Stahlman,  we  sent 
another  dispatch,  written  a  few  minutes  after  the  first,  advising  him  to 
call  on  our  attorney  for  further  information,  and  wired  Major  Stahlmaii 
to  call  to  see  Senator  Pasco  about  the  matter. 

7.  Major  Stahlman  informed  us  that  he  did  call  on  Senator  Pasco,  who 
said  he  was  satisfied.    The  reference  in  this  second  telegram  to  Senator 
Pasco  to  Mr.  Stahlman's  interest  on  our  behalf  as  reaching  "  above  and 
beyond  pecuniary  considerations"  was  justified  by  the  fact  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  had  for  years  labored  in  our  interest  without  any  contract 
for  a  fee,  and  because  he  reduced  the  fee  from  50  to  35  per  cent,  as  shown 
by  the  evidence,  mainly  because  he  was  a  member  of  our  church  and 
felt  an  interest  in  its  welfare. 

8.  Our  telegram  to   Senator  Bate  told  him  what  we  had  wired 
Senator  Pasco,  but  did  not  answer  his  inquiry  because  we  felt  it  had 
no  bearing  on  the  merits  of  our  claim,  and  because  it  was  due  to  our 
attorney,  Mr.  Stahlman,  who  was  in  Washington,  and  in  keeping  with 
our  original  promise  to  him,  not  to  divulge  the  nature  of  the  agreement 
and  to  let  him  meet  that  inquiry  in  such  a  manner  as  he  thought 
proper. 

9.  Our  correspondence  with  Senator  Pasco,  after  the  bill  had  been 
passed,  shows  that  we  had  not  designed  to  mislead  Senators  Pasco  and 
Bate,  and  that  Senator  Pasco  was  not  by  our  intention  misled  by  us. 

J.  D.  BABBEE. 

Mr.  BARBEE.  Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  Something  was  said  about  Senator  Bate 
being  produced  as  a  witness. 

Senator  STEWART.  That  matter  is  now  under  consideration. 

Senator  PASCO.  We  have  met  this  morning  to  determine  what  fur- 
ther course  we  shall  take  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  find  in  the  printed  report  of  these  proceedings  a 
contract  which  I  did  not  know  was  in  the  record.  It  was  filed  with 
some  papers  of  Mr.  Smith,  and  is  dated  "Nashville,  Tenn.,  April  12, 
1894."  I  suppose  it  was  presented  along  with  other  papers,  but  we 
did  not  know  that  it  had  been  presented.  I  would  like  to  ask  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  be  allowed  to  explain  that  contract.  That  is  one  of  the 
matters  to  which  I  desire  to  call  to  the  attention  of  the  committee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  members  of  the  committee  have  only  had  the 
printed  copy  of  the  proceedings  presented  to  them  a  moment  ago,  and 
have  not  had  time  to  examine  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  It  is  on  page  101. 


106  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  should  like  Mr.  Stahlman  to  be  permitted  to  make 
a  statement  011  that  point. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  want  to  make  some  explanation  to 
the  committee  in  regard  to  a  contract  which  antedated  the  contract 
under  which  I  assumed  the  work.  A  contract  appears  in  the  record 
wherein  I  agreed  to  collect  this  claim  for  $50,000.  That  contract  was 
made  before  my  contract  of  June,  1895.  I  came  on  to  Washington 
after  this  contract  was  made,  and  I  found  that  that  contract  would 
require  my  association  with  an  attorney  which  would  not  be  agreeable. 
I  prefer  not  to  mention  names,  but  he  was  a  gentleman  with  whom  I 
did  not  care  to  have  any  connection  in  this  matter.  Upon  my  return 
home  I  notified  Dr.  Barbee  that  it  would  be  of  no  use  to  try  to  do  any- 
thing under  that  arrangement;  that  in  order  to  be  successful  it  would 
necessitate  very  earnest  work;  that  I  would  have  practically  all  the 
work  to  do,  and  I  therefore  did  not  desire  to  work  under  that  arrange- 
ment. I  do  not  care  to  name  the  parties,  but  there  were  substantial 
reasons  why  I  did  not  want  to  be  associated  with  them  in  the  work. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Was  that  party  to  have  an  additional  fee  for  his 
services? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes;  15  per  cent. 

Senator  CLAY.  Then  this  contract  was  done  away  with,  and  this  other 
contract  of  yours  was  substituted? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Yes. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  The  first  contract  was  taken  up! 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  It  was  taken  up;  and  I  therefore  do  not  think  it  has 
anything  to  do  with  this  investigation. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  This  first  contract  is  mentioned  in  the  church's 
statement. 

Mr.  BENNY.  Yes;  it  is  in  our  statement. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (to  Mr.  tstahlman).  That  contract  was  made  directly 
between  you  and  the  book  agents? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  remember  as  to  that.  I  came  on  here  to 
make  some  investigation  about  it.  I  found  it  would  not  be  agreeable 
for  me,  or  profitable,  to  act  under  it,  and  I  did  not  act  under  it. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Was  that  a  contract  between  you  and  the  book  com- 
mittee or  between  you  and  the  book  agents? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  do  not  think  I  had  had  any  conference  with  the 
book  committee  at  that  time,  although  I  am  not  sure.  It  may  be  that 
I  had.  I  know  that  members  of  the  book  committee  were  extremely 
anxious  that  I  should  take  hold  of  their  claim,  and  it  was  because  of 
their  anxiety  that  the  contract  was  entered  into.  I  was,  moreover,  then 
actively  engaged  in  railway  service. 

Senator  CLAY.  No  Member  of  Congress  had  anything  to  do  with  that 
contract? 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  Not  the  slightest  in  the  world. 

Of  course  rumors  do  not  go  for  much,  but  I  have  heard  it  said  that 
the  statement  which  I  submitted  the  other  day  to  the  committee  in  rela- 
tion to  my  expenses  covered  many  things  of  a  suspicious  nature. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  have  not  heard  anything  of  that  kind. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  The  committee  may  not  have  heard  it,  but  it  has  been 
talked  about,  and  I  therefore  want  to  suggest  this :  There  are  four  or 
five  big  items  in  that  statement.  If  the  committee  is  not  thoroughly 
satisfied,  it  will  please  me  very  much  to  have  gentlemen  summoned  here 
connected  with  the  banks  and  the  people  to  whom  these  large  sums  of 
money  were  paid  to  testify  that  they  were  debts  of  many  years'  stand- 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  107 

ing.    I  will  give  the  names  of  the  bank  officials  whom  the  committee 
may  summon. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  hardly  think  that  is  necessary.  The  statement 
which  you  made  the  committee  has  got,  and  the  committee  has  not 
found  any  fault  with  it.  It  looks  like  a  natural  account,  and  I  have  no 
disposition  myself  to  go  further  in  that  direction.  If  any  of  the  com- 
mittee want  to  do  so,  I  suppose  we  shall  do  it. 

Mr.  STAHLMAN.  I  merely  make  the  suggestion  so  that  if  there  be  any 
doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  Senator  I  am  in  a  position  to  relieve  that 
doubt,  and  I  shall  be  glad  to  have  an  opportunity  to  do  so. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  If  we  are  not  entirely  satisfied  with  the  statement, 
we  will  probably  call  upon  you,  but  if  we  are  satisfied  we  will  not. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  There  is  another  matter  I  would  like  to  call  to  the 
attention  of  the  committee  connected  with  this  investigation.  I  have 
been  to  see  Ex-Senator  Fowler,  who  was  associated  with  Ex-Senator 
Foote,  and  I  would  like  to  be  able  to  show  that  the  fee  agreed  to  be 
paid  to  Senator  Foote  was  $150,000. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  do  not  see  that  we  have  anything  to  do  with  that. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  do  not  think"  we  have. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  main  question  here  is  whether  the  Senate  was 
deceived. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Whether  the  Senate  was  acting  under  a  misrepre- 
sentation. 

Mr.  DENNY.  There  is  one  point  which  I  think  the  committee  has 
overlooked,  but  which  weighed  very  considerably  on  my  mind  in  reach- 
ing the  conclusion  which  our  committee  reached  in  reference  to  the 
innocence  of  these  men  in  regard  to  any  intention  to  deceive.  I  thought 
it  possible  that  the  committee  would  have  brought  it  out. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  discussed  it  in  your  statement. 

Mr.  DENNY.  There  was  another  point  that  we  did  not  discuss. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  What  was  it? 

Mr.  DENNY.  For  two  or  three  weeks  there  had  been  rumors  current 
in  Nashville  that  there  was  a  contract  for  40  per  cent  with  Mr.  Stahl- 
man.  Dr.  Barbee  and  Mr.  Smith  were  approached  about  that  fee  of  40 
per  cent.  I  know  that  I  was  approached  about  it,  and  my  answer  to 
the  inquiry  was  that  while  we  expected  to  pay  a  reasonable  fee,  we  did 
not  expect  to  pay  as  much  as  40  per  cent.  The  mental  condition  of 
these  gentlemen  was  projected  directly  to  that  one  point  of  a  40  per 
cent  fee,  so  that  it  seemed  to  me  that  it  was  pertinent  to  this  investi- 
gation to  show  that  the  rumor  was  current  and  was  being  constantly 
denied,  so  that  when  that  letter  came  to  Barbee  and  Smith  concerning 
that  same  point  they  answered  as  they  had  been  answering  before. 
There  are  very  many  illustrations  which  I  could  give,  both  in  history 
and  literature,  bearing  upon  the  point. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  know  anything  about  the  fee  of  35  per  cent 
when  you  denied  the  fee  of  40  per  cent? 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  knew,  then,  that  35  per  cent  was  to  be  paid! 

Mr.  DENNY.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  Then  you  denied  that  there  was  a  contract  of  40  per 
cent! 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  did  not  deny  that  a  contract  existed.  I  said  to  the 
gentleman  who  inquired  of  me,  "I  expect  we  shall  pay  Mr.  Stahlman 
a  reasonable  compensation,  but  I  can  not  state  to  you  matters  that  are 
the  private  business  of  the  book  committee.  But  I  will  tell  you  that 
we  do  not  expect  to  pay  as  much  as  40  per  cent." 


108  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Do  you  not  think  that  that  led  people  to  believe  that 
there  was  no  contract! 

Mr.  DENNY.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Was  it  not  a  practical  declaration  that  it  was  uncer- 
tain what  fee  was  to  be  paid! 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  think  not. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  the  inference  which  any  business  man  would 
draw. 

Mr.  DENNY.  The  man  who  spoke  to  me  certainly  did  not  draw  that 
inference.  He  addressed  me  particularly  in  reference  to  the  arrange- 
ment to  pay  40  per  cent.  I  said  to  him,  "We  have  au  arrangement 
with  Mr.  Stahlinan;  we  are  going  to  pay  him  a  reasonable  compensa- 
tion, but  not  so  much  as  40  per  cent.  I  can  not  tell  you  how  much  we 
are  to  pay  him,  because  that  would  be  disclosing  business  matters 
which  it  would  not  be  proper  for  me  to  mention." 

Senator  PASCO.  Suppose  that  you  had  been  asked,  as  Barbee  and 
Smith  were  asked,  to  state  all  the  facts  of  the  case! 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  should  have  said  at  once,  "That  is  a  matter  into  which 
you  ought  not  to  go." 

Senator  PASCO.  Would  you  have  justified  making  a  total  denial,  as 
Dr.  Barbee  did? 

Mr.  DENNY.  No;  I  have  explained  that. 

Senator  PASCO.  When  Senator  Bate  asked  whether  there  was  a  con- 
tract for  that  or  any  other  fee,  would  you  have  felt  justified  in  referring 
to  another  telegram  which  contained  a  full  denial? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  would  not  have  answered  that  telegram  as  it  was 
answered. 

Senator  CLAY.  Your  trouble  is  simply  this :  You  were  asked  whether 
or  not  there  was  a  fee  of  40  per  cent.  Evidently  when  that  question 
was  asked  you  must  have  thought  that  the  party  asking  it  was  dissatis- 
fied, thinking  that  it  was  too  large  a  fee,  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be 
paid.  Now,  knowing  that  the  fee  was  to  be  35  per  cent  (a  sum  almost 
equal  to  40  per  cent),  it  strikes  me  that  it  would  have  been  the  duty  of 
the  parties  to  put  the  Senate  on  notice  exactly  as  to  the  state  of  the 
case.  As  I  said,  there  is  very  little  difference  between  a  fee  of  35  per 
cent  and  a  fee  of  40  per  cent. 

Mr.  DENNY.  There  is  a  difference  of  $14,000  or  $15,000. 

Senator  CLAY.  A  positive  answer  should  have  been  given.  It  would 
have  been  just  to  the  Senate  to  say,  "No;  it  is  not  40  per  cent;  we 
only  pay  35  per  cent."  That  would  have  been  frank. 

Mr.  DENNY.  Here  is  a  man  who  approached  me  on  the  street  and 
asked  me  about  the  private  affairs  of  a  corporation  of  which  I  am  a 
director.  1  said  to  him  at  once,  "It  is  not  proper  for  you  to  ask  such  a 
question." 

Senator  STEWART.  I  understand  you  to  make  this  statement  with  a 
view  of  explaining  the  answer  of  Barbee  &  Smith  to  Senators  Bate 
and  Pasco.  I  would  like  to  inquire  whether  you  justify  the  answer  of 
Barbee  &  Smith  to  this  telegram  of  Senator  Bate: 

Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent,  or  any  other  fee,  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I 
would  like  to  hear  from  you  also.  In  my  judgment,  if  true,  it  will  endanger  the  bill. 

WM.  B.  BATE. 

Now,  here  is  the  answer  of  Barbee  &  Smith : 
Hon.  W.  B.  BATE  : 

We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m.  as  follows :  "The  statement  is  untrue.  You 
are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it." 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  109 

Mr  DENNY.  I  do  not  think  that  was  a  wise  telegram.  It  is  not  such 
a  telegram  as  I  should  have  sent.  When  I  first  heard  of  it  I  said  to 
the  agents,  "It  is  not  a  telegram  that  you  should  have  sent.  It  will 
mislead  the  man  who  got  it."  But  I  am  also  convinced,  from  my  knowl- 
edge of  the  men  and  from  my  knowledge  of  their  mental  state  at  the 
time,  that  they  did  not  intend  to  deceive  Senator  Bate. 

Senator  STEWART.  Do  you  deny  that  their  reply  was  well  calculated 
to  deceive? 

Mr.  DENNY.  I  think  that  if  that  answer  was  all  I  had  known  about 
it  I  should  have  concluded  as  Senator  Bate  did. 

Senator  CLAY.  A  man  of  education,  who  has  been  preaching  the 
gospel  for  a  number  of  years,  ought  to  have  known  the  meaning  of  the 
English  language.  There  is  only  one  conclusion  to  be  drawn  from  it. 
No  other  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  it  than  that  it  was  intended  to 
deceive.  I  am  frank  to  say  that  Mr.  Stahlman's  explanation  is  more 
satisfactory  to  me  than  that  of  Barbee  &  Smith — a  thousand  times 
more  satisfactory. 

Mr.  DENNY.  You  would  not  draw  that  conclusion  if  you  knew  those 
men  as  well  as  I  know  them.  It  was  largely  a  matter  of  mental  condi- 
tion. I  can  give  you  an  explanation  of  what  I  mean.  When  Joshua 
and  Moses  were  coming  down  from  the  Mount  they  heard  a  noise  in  the 
camp.  Joshua  was  a  warrior,  and  he  projected  his  mental  condition 
into  what  was  passing,  and  he  said :  "  There  is  a  noise  of  war."  Moses, 
who  was  a  poet  and  not  a  warrior,  projected  his  mental  condition  into 
what  was  passing  and  said:  "I  do  not  hear  the  noise  of  war;  it  is 
singing  that  I  hear."  And  that  is  the  case  all  through  life.  We  project 
our  mental  state  into  the  condition  of  things  before  us. 

Senator  CLAY.  If  their  mental  state  is  in  that  condition,  you  ought 
to  have  new  book  agents  for  that  concern. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  JOHN  W.  GAINES. 

Hon.  JOHN  W.  GAINES,  a  Eepresentative  from  the  State  of  Tennes- 
see, sworn  and  examined: 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  are  a  member  of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives 
from  the  Nashville  district  of  Tennessee? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes;  I  am  a  member  of  the  House  from  the  Sixth  Con- 
gressional district  of  Tennessee. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  some  correspondence  with  the  book  agents 
of  the  Methodist  Church  South  ? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes;  shortly  after  the  convening  of  the  extra  session 
of  the  present  Congress,  in  March,  1897,  I  received  a  letter  from 
"Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith,  agents,"  which  I  have  with  me,  and  which 
I  will  read  to  the  committee. 

Mr.  Gaines  read  the  letter,  as  follows : 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  IS,  1897. 
Hon.  JOHN  WESLEY  GAINES, 

Member  House  of  Representatives,  Washington,  D.  C. 

DEAR  SIR  :  Inclosed  herewith  you  will  find  copy  of  Senate  bill  2962,  designed  to 
confer  jurisdiction  on  the  Court  of  Claims  in  the  case  of  the  Book  Agents  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  against  the  United  States.  You  will  also  find 
herewith  a  pamphlet  explaining  the  nature  of  this  claim. 

A  claim  for  the  use  of  the  Publishing  House  by  the  Army  was  presented  to  Con- 
gress in  1872.  Bills  were  introduced  at  different  sessions,  and  at  six  different  times 
reports  were  made  favoring  the  payment  of  $288,000.  At  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress, when  the  matter  was  being  considered  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims, 

S.  Eep.  1416 '8 


110  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

there  was  some  question  raised  as  to  the  amount  that  ought  to  be  paid,  and  rather 
than  have  the  church  placed  in  the  attitude  of  securing  the  payment  of  a  sum  which 
might  be  considered  by  some  as  not  due,  it  was  agreed  to  submit  the  matter  to  the 
Court  of  Claims,  and  the  bill  herewith  was  drafted  by  the  committee,  unanimously 
reported,  and  passed  by  the  Senate  without  opposition,  in  May,  1896,  transmitted  to 
the  House  and  reported  favorably  by  the  House  committee,  which,  it  is  proper  to 
say,  had,  previous  to  the  action  of  the  Senate  recommended  a  bill  for  a  direct  appro- 
priation of  $288,000. 

The  claim  was  originally  about  $450,000,  but  the  friends  of  the  church,  in  the 
hope  of  being  able  to  secure  payment  in  1877,  agreed  to  accept  $288,000.  We  do  not 
think  that  we  ought  to  be  asked  to  accept  any  less  than  that.  Really,  we  feel  that 
we  ought  to  have  more,  but  we  are  willing  to  let  the  question  as  to  the  amount  be 
determined  by  the  Court  of  Claims.  We  should  have  undoubtedly  been  able  to 
secure  the  passage  of  this  bill  through  the  House  at  the  last  session  but  for  the  fact 
that  it  was  low  down  on  the  Calendar  and  could  not  be  reached  in  the  regular  order, 
thus  requiring  special  recognition  from  the  Speaker,  which  the  Speaker  did  not 
seem  disposed  to  give,  alleging  that  it  would  involve  recognition  on  a  large  number 
of  other  claims  aggregating  millions  of  dollars,  which,  in  our  judgment,  was  a  mis- 
taken notion,  since  the  unpaid  claims  of  this  nature,  as  shown  by  the  pamphlet  here- 
with, aggregate  less  than  $1,000,000,  and  the  passage  of  our  bill,  therefore,  would  not 
have  involved  the  Government  to  any  great  extent. 

We  know  you  are  a  friend  of  the  church,  and  as  the  Representative  of  this  Con- 
gressional district  we  hope  you  will  take  this  matter  in  hand,  introduce  this  bill, 
have  it  promptly  referred  and  promptly  reported  by  the  committee,  so  that  it  may 
be  put  on  the  Calendar  early.  The  importance  of  having  it  put  on  the  Calendar  as 
one  of  the  first  reported  bills  is  apparent,  in  view  of  the  indisposition  of  the  Speaker 
to  allow  such  bills  to  come  up  -out  of  the  regular  order.  There  is  really  no  reason 
why  the  committee  should  not  make  a  report  on  the  first  day  of  its  session,  and  if 
you  can  secure  such  a  result  there  will,  in  our  judgment,  be  no  trouble  about  the 
passage  of  the  bill.  Mr.  McMillin  and  Mr.  Richardson  both  understand  the  nature 
of  the  measure  very  fully,  and  we  feel  assured  they  will  aid  you  to  any  extent  in 
their  power  to  secure  a  prompt  report  from  the  committee  on  the  bill.  We  have 
written  them  to-day,  asking  them  to  cooperate  with  you. 

Mr.  Stahlman,  who,  in  connection  with  a  large  number  of  other  matters,  has  been 
giving  our  measure  some  attention,  will  be  in  Washington  again  within  the  next 
few  days,  and  he  will  be  glad  to  talk  with  you  about  the  matter.  Our  Dr.  Barbee 
will  likewise  be  in  Washington  within  the  nextten  days,  and  will  take  pleasure  in  con- 
ferring with  you.  In  the  meantime  we  hope  you  will  see  your  way  clear  to  have  the 
bill  introduced  promptly,  sent  to  the  committee,  and  reported,  so  that  it  may  be 
entered  on  the  Calendar  as  one  of  the  first  bills. 

If  for  any  reason  you  do  not  feel  that  you  can  introduce  and  give  this  bill  your 
active  support,  we  will  thank  you  to  hand  it  to  Mr.  McMillan,  who,  we  are  sure, will 
take  pleasure  in  introducing  it  promptly.  In  this  connection  let  us  say  that  we 
endeavored  to  reach  you  on  Friday,  so  as  to  have  a  conference  with  you  on  the  sub- 
ject, but  found,  much  to  our  regret,  that  you  had  left  for  Washington. 

Believing  that  you  will  comply  with  our  request,  we  beg  to  thank  you  in  advance 
for  the  efforts  you  make  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  measure. 
Sincerely,  yours, 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Agents. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  may  state  what  you  did  in  that  connection. 

Mr.  GrAiNES.  The  bill  which  they  inclosed  I  took  bodily  and  intro- 
duced it  as  a  bill  of  the  session,  referring  the  matter  to  the  Court  of 
Claims.  Here  is  a  printed  statement  of  fact  relating  to  the  claim— one 
of  the  inclosures  sent  me  in  this  letter. 

The  statement  is  as  follows : 

Statement  of  facts  relating  to  Senate  bill  2969  to  confer  jurisdiction  on  the  Court  of  Claims 
in  the  case  of  the  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South. 

The  facts  with  respect  to  this  claim  are  taken  mainly  from  House  Report  352,  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Lester,  from  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  Fifty-fourth  Congress, 
and,  briefly  stated,  are  substantially  as  follows : 

"The  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South"  is  a  corporation 
chartered  by  the  legislature  of  Tennessee  in  1854.  The  object  of  this  institution  is 
"to  advance  the  cause  of  Christianity  by  disseminating  religions  knowledge  and  use- 
ful literary  and  scientific  information  in  the  form  of  books,  tracts,  and  periodicals." 

The  net  proceeds  of  the  publishing  house,  established  at  Nashville  by  and  under 
the  control  of  this  corporation,  are,  as  provided  under  the  organic  law  of  the  church, 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  Ill 

set  apart  "for  the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn- 
out  preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

Under  this  organization,  and  with  this  object  in  view,  large  sums  of  money  were 
accumulated  through  contributions  and  other  sources  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing an  extensive  publishing  house  plant  in  Nashville,  Tenn.,  and  such  a  plant  was 
established  and  was  in  full  and  successful  operation  when  the  war  between  the 
States  broke  out  in  1861,  and  up  to  the  time  the  Federal  army,  under  General  Buell, 
reached  Nashville  in  February,  1862. 

When,  after  the  fall  of  Fort  Donelson,  the  army  of  General  Buell  reached  the 
vicinity  of  Nashville,  and  was  camped  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  river  from  the 
city,  it  appears  that  the  mayor  of  Nashville,  with  city  officials  and  citizens  (includ- 
ing among  the  latter  the  present  chairman  of  the  book  committee  of  this  publishing 
house),  met  General  Buell  and  informed  him  of  the  city's  condition,  and  invited  him 
to  occupy  and  protect  the  city,  and  that  General  Buell  "expressed  gratification  at 
the  proceeding,"  and  assured  the  deputation  "that  protection  to  both  persons  and 
property  of  all  peaceable  citizens  would  be  fully  extended  by  the  Army  of  the  United 
States,"  and  requested  the  mayor  to  so  inform  the  people  by  proclamation.  Where- 
upon the  mayor,  on  the  26th  of  February,  1862,  issued  his  proclamation,  stating, 
among  other  things,  that  "the  committee  representing  the  city  authorities  and  the 
people  have  discharged  their  duty  by  calling  on  General  Buell  in  Edgefield  on  yes- 
terday. The  interview  was  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  committee,  and  there  is 
every  assurance  of  safety  and  protection  to  the  people  both  in  their  persons  and  their 
property.  I  therefore  request  that  business  be  resumed  and  all  our  citizens  of  every 
trade  and  profession  pursue  their  regular  vocation." 

On  the  same  day  (February  26)  General  Buell  issued  a  proclamation,  in  which, 
among  other  things,  he  said: 

"  We  are  in  arms  not  for  the  purpose  of  invading  the  rights  of  pur  fellow-country- 
men anywhere,  but  to  maintain  the  Union  and  protect  the  Constitution.  *  *  * 
Peaceable  citizens  are  not  to  be  molested  in  their  personal  property;  all  wrongs  to 
either  are  to  be  promptly  corrected,  and  the  offenders  brought  to  punishment,"  etc. 
"If  the  necessities  of  the  public  service  require  the  use  of  private  property  for  public 
purposes,  compensation  is  to  be  allowed,"  etc. 

General  Butler,  in  his  proclamation  upon  entering  New  Orleans,  stated  that  "all 
rights  of  property  of  whatever  kind  will  be  inviolate,  subject  only  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States." 

The  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  "The  Venice, "decided  that  this  clause  "only 
reiterates  the  rules  established  by  the  legislative  and  executive  action  of  the  National 
Government  in  respect  to  the  portions  of  the  States  in  insurrection,  and  occupied 
and  controlled  by  the  troops  of  the  Union ;"  and  that  "wherever  the  national  troops 
have  established  order  under  national  rule  the  right  of  person  and  property  has 
been  in  general  respected  and  enforced." 

There  was  no  formal  surrender  at  New  Orleans  or  Nashville,  but  in  Nashville  there 
was  formal  submission,  while  in  New  Orleans  the  mayor  refused  to  give  the  pledge 
of  submission. 

The  orders  or  proclamation  of  General  Buell  were  much  broader  and  more  definite 
than  General  Butler's;  they  reached  to  the  conduct  of  officers  and  men,  enjoining 
them  against  all  interference  with  property,  etc.,  and  expressly  provided  for  com- 
pensation for  property  taken  for  public  use. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  but  what  the  proclamation  and  order  of  General  Buell 
were  intended  and  should  have  the  effect  of  giving  a  "full  measure  of  protection  to 
persons  and  property  consistent  with  a  necessary  subjection  to  military  govern- 
ment," and  that  from  and  after  February  26, 1862,  citizens  of  Nashville  who  remained 
peaceable  could  not  be  regarded  as  enemies  or  their  property  as  enemies'  property. 

The  people  of  Nashville  after  that  period  and  until  the  close  of  hostilities  engaged 
freelj  in  their  business  pursuits;  the  courts  were  open;  the  civil  administration  of 
the  law  prevailed;  there  was  no  disturbance  of  the  relations  which  should  exist 
between  the  military  and  civil  authorities,  and  it  is  owing  to  this  condition  of  affairs, 
satisfactorily  established  by  history  in  connection  with  this  property  and  the  use  of 
it  by  the  Army,  that  furnishes  abundant  foundation  for  this  claim.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  but  what  the  property  was  protected  by  the  proclamation  of  General  Buell. 
This  fact  derives  additional  force  from  th«  proclamation  of  the  President,  dated 
August  16,  1861,  in  which  he  declares  certain  States  and  parts  of  States  in  rebellion 
and  exempts  States  and  parts  of  States  and  such  territory  as  "may  be  from  time  to 
time  occupied  and  controlled  by  forces  of  the  United  States  engaged  in  the  dis- 
persion of  said  insurgents."  And  in  this  connection  it  may  be  stated  that  during  the 
entire  time  from  February  26,  1862,  to  the  close  of  the  war  the  city  of  Nashville  was 
in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  Army  of  the  United  States. 

On  the  24th  of  May,  1862,  a  libel  of  information  was  filed  by  the  United  States  dis- 
trict attorney  in  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  to  sequester,  condemn  and 
sell,  and  to  confiscate  the  proceeds  of  the  property,  real  and  personal,  of  the  corpora- 
tion known  as  "The  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South."  On 


112  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

the  3d  of  June,  1862,  the  corporation  interposed  its  claim  to  the  property,  gave 
security  for  costs,  arid  asked  to  be  allowed  to  intervene  for  its  rights  of  property  and 
possession.  The  bond  to  replevy  the  property  was  filed  on  the  4th  of  June,  1862. 
Motions  were  made  and  argued,  pleas  and  demurrers  were  tiled  in  the  cause.  The 
case  was  continued  several  terms  upon  application  of  the  United  States  district 
attorney.  Finally,  after  numerous  continuances  by  the  Government,  the  cause  was 
dismissed  at  the  November  term,  1865,  by  direction  of  the  Attorney-General  of  the 
United  States. 

"The  proceedings  in  the  case  for  confiscation  were  conducted  with  as  much  regu- 
larity and  as  little  interruption  as  if  they  had  been  instituted  in  a  court  of  New 
York.  Judge  Catron,  one  of  the  Supreme  Court  judges  of  the  United  States,  held  the 
court  and  presided  with  as  little  obstruction  or  threat  from  the  enemy  as  he  did  in 
the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington,  and  the  national  authority  was  enforced  there 
through  the  courts,  and  they  administered  the  laws,  local  and  national,  so  far  as 
applicable  to  controversies  between  citizens,  as  completely  and  effectually  within 
the  territory  protected  by  the  Federal  armies  as  could  have  been  done  in  any  loyal 
State.  This  condition  of  the  country  gave  the  people  at  Nashville  the  same  protec- 
tion under  the  laws  of  the  United  States  that  is  so  distinctly  provided  for  in  the 
order  of  General  Buell,  viz,  'If  the  necessities  of  the  public  service  should  require 
the  use  of  private  property  for  public  purposes,  compensation  is  to  be  allowed.' 

"On  the  24th  day  of  May  there  was  nothing  in  Nashville  to  prevent  the  United 
States,  through  its  courts,  from  endeavoring  to  assert  its  right  to  confiscate  this 
property,  and  when  the  property  was  seized  and  taken  possession  of  under  such  pro- 
ceedings, and  while  it  continued  in  the  custody  of  the  court,  it  was  not  liable  to 
seizure  or  capture  by  the  Army. 

"But  the  Government  never  claimed  this  property  as  captured.  In  both  instances 
when  the  Government  seized  the  property,  first  under  confiscation  proceedings  and 
then  under  order  of  General  Thomas,  it  was  seized  for  confiscation  under  the  penal 
statutes  of  the  United  States,  and  not  as  property  the  Government  had  acquired 
in  any  other  way. 

"  These  statutes  provide  for  condemnation  after  trial  had  in  the  courts.  They 
furnish  no  authority  for  taking  property,  even  of  rebels,  without  due  course  of  law. 
The  Army  can  not  enforce  these  statutes.  It  certainly  had  no  right  to  take  jurisdic- 
tion under  confiscation  and  oust  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States." 

Again,  neither  a  military  commandant  nor  the  courts  had  the  right  to  confiscate 
the  property  of  this  corporation.  "Confiscation  was  possible  only  to  the  extent 
and  in  the  manner  provided  by  the  acts  of  Congress.  These  acts  were  passed  on  the 
6th  of  August,  1861,  and  on  the  17th  of  July,  1862.  No  others  authorized  the  con- 
fiscation of  private  property,  and  they  prescribed  the  manner  in  which  alone  confis- 
cation could  be  made.  They  designated  Government  agents  for  seizing  enemies'  prop- 
erty, and  they  directed  the  mode  of  procedure  for  its  condemnation  in  the  courts. 
The  system  devised  was  necessarily  exclusive.  No  authority  was  given  to  a  mili- 
tary commandant,  as  such,  to  effect  any  confiscation.  And  under  neither  of  the  acts 
was  the  property  of  a  banking  institution  (a  corporation)  made  confiscable.  Both 
of  them  had  in  view  the  property  of  natural  persons  who  were  public  enemies,  of 
persons  who  gave  aid  and  comfort  to  the  rebellion,  or  who  held  office  under  the  Con- 
federate Government  or  under  one  of  the  States  composing  it.  In  no  one  of  the  six 
classes  of  persons  whose  property  was  by  the  act  of  1862  declared  subject  to  confisca- 
tion was  an  artificial  being  included."  (Planters'  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  16  Wallace, 
p.  483.) 

The  decision  of  the  court  that  property  is  not  confiscable  is  a  decision  that  the 
persons  or  corporations  who  own  such  property  have  the  right  to  enjoy  it. 

The  error  into  which  the  United  States  district  attorney  had  fallen,  in  his  endeavor 
to  confiscate  the  property  of  this  publishing  house  corporation,  was  recognized  in 
the  subsequent  dismissal  of  the  proceedings. 

After  General  Buell  had  entered  Nashville  the  corporation  of  Book  Agents  con- 
tinued its  business  of  publishing  books,  tracts,  etc.,  and  doing  job  work  for  its  cus- 
tomers until  the  property  was  taken  possession  of  under  the  confiscation  proceedings, 
and  after  the  property  was  replevied  it  still  continued  business  and  remained  in  the 
possession  and  custody  of  the  Book  Agents  until  December,  1863,  when  the  entire 
establishment  was  taken  possession  of  by  the  Army. 

There  is  no  contention  that  this  publishing  house  or  any  of  the  agents  authorized 
to  represent  said  corporation  did  anything,  after  the  Fed'eral  Army  took  possession 
of  Nashville,  not  in  perfect  keeping  with  their  obligations  as  law-abiding  citizens. 

On  the  28th  of  December,  1863,  while  the  confiscation  proceedings  were  pending, 
General  Thomas  issued  an  order,  addressed  to  Col.  J.  L.  Donaldson,  United  States 
quartermaster  at  Nashville,  stating : 

"  It  has  been  for  a  long  time  in  contemplation  at  these  headquarters  to  make  an 
army  printing  office  of  the  Methodist  Publishing  House  in  Nashville.  The  house 
has  been  confiscated  by  the  United  States  Government  and  is  represented  as  being  in 
every  way  eligible  for  the  printing  of  blanks  and  orders 


1ETHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 


113 


and  by  being  run  by  the  Government  would  save  from  $25,000  to  $30,000  per  year  to 
the  Government,  without  counting  loss  of  time  in  getting  work  beyond  the  Ohio." 

This  order  asserts  that  the  house  "  has  been  confiscated."  Such  was  not  the  fact. 
Proceedings  had  only  been  instituted  to  confiscate,  and  it  was  in  the  custody  of  the 
court  when  General  Thomas  ordered  its  seizure. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  property  was  not  taken  possession  of  as  captured  prop- 
erty. General  Buell's  order  protected  it.  General  Thomas  did  not  withdraw  this 
protection.  On  the  contrary,  he  assumed  that  it  had  been  confiscated. 

It  was  not  seized,  with  reference  to  its  usefulness,  in  any  tactical  or  strategic 
sense  for  the  Army.  It  was  seized  to  save  money  in  printing  for  the  Army,  and  as  a 
convenience  for  the  civil  department  of  the  Government.  The  law  of  military  neces- 
sity did  not  apply.  A  publishing  house  is  in  no  respect  a  part  of  Army  equipment. 
The  protection  given  by  General  Buell's  proclamation,  and  the  custodianship  of  the 
United  States  court,  placed  this  property  beyond  the  reach  of  the  ordinary  rules 
which  apply  to  enemies'  property.  When  the  Government  gives  such  protection  to 
property  it  assumes  to  pay  for  it,  if  any  urgent  necessity  requires  it  to  apply  the 
property  to  the  public  use. 

The  court  alone  can  render  judgment  of  forfeiture  ia.  such  cases  and  can  alone 
condemn  and  confiscate  it;  and  when  it  is  proceeding  to  adjudicate  in  such  a  man- 
ner, no  other  authority  can  take  the  matter  out  of  its  hands  and  confiscate  it.  Con- 
gress could  not  do  so  much,  and  it  is  not  possible  that  a  military  government  can 
lawfully  exercise  such  authority;  and  yet  this  is  the  precise  attitude  of  this  matter. 
The  property  was  seized  by  order  of  General  Thomas  as  confiscated  property,  while 
the  United  States  was  suing  in  its  courts  for  its  condemnation. 

The  Government  admitted  by  its  refusal  to  prosecute  the  suit,  and  the  court 
decided,  that  this  property  never  was  forfeited  to  the  United  States  by  the  crime  of 
its  owner.  The  military  authorities  never  seized  the  property  as  "captured  or 
abandoned  property."  In  any  view  of  the  case,  the  property  remained  the  property 
of  the  "Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  corporation,"  and 
was  not  changed  by  either  its  legal  or  military  custody.  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
the  order  of  General  Buell,  stating  that  "  if  the  necessities  of  the  public  service 
should  require  the  use  of  private  property  to  public  uses  compensation  is  to  be 
allowed,"  applies  in  its  fullest  sense  to  the  claim  of  this  corporation,  and  especially 
since  this  "law  of  compensation  declared  by  General  Buell  is  the  same  that  is  found 
in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  in  all  States  regulating  the  right  of 
eminent  domain." 

It  is  clear,  therefore — 

First.  That,  even  though  the  publishing  house  might  have  been  considered  enemy's 
property  prior  to  the  occupation  of  Nashville  by  the  Federal  Army,  from  and  after 
February  26,  1862,  when  General  Buell  took  possession  of  Nashville  and  issued  his 
proclamation,  it  could  not  be  so  considered;  that  the  occupation  of  Nashville  by 
the  Federal  Army  carried  with  it  "the  full  measure  of  protection  to  persons  and 

to  military  government."  ("The 


property  consistent  with  a  necessary  subjection 
Venice/'  2  Wallace,  p.  258.) 


Second.  That  the  property  of  the  Book  Agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
South  was  not  subject  to  confiscation,  and  especially  was  this  true  of  this  institution 
as  a  corporation.  (Planters'  Bank  v.  Union  Bank,  16  Wallace,  p.  483.) 

Third.  That,  in  view  of  the  protection  vouchsafed  to  the  citizens  of  Nashville 
under  the  proclamation  of  General  Buell,  and  the  laws  which  govern  under  such 
circumstances,  this  publishing  house  corporation  is  entitled  to  compensation  for  the 
use,  occupancy,  and  injury  inflicted  upon  its  property  by  the  Army. 

This  was  understood  to  be  the  rule  applied  by  the  War  Department  in  the  pay- 
ment of  church  claims,  on  the  dates  specified,  at  various  points  in  Tennessee,  for 
use,  occupation,  and  injury  inflicted  upon  said  churches  by  the  Army,  as  follows, 
to  wit: 

[Report  JSo.  1783,  House  Committee  on  "War  Claims,  third  session  Fifty-third  Congress,  pp.  18  to  21, 

inclusive.] 


Church. 

Amount. 

Date  of 
payment, 

$2.  600.  00 
3,  600.  00 
343.00 
1,200.00 
2,  450.  00 
3,  640.  00 
1,  200.  00 
4,  599.  46 
5,  000.  00 
227.  20 

June  20,  1865 
Jaii.     5,  1867 
June  11,  1866 
Sept.    9,186r 
Feb.     3.  1866 
Jan.  23,1867 
Sept.    5,1866 
May  20,1865 
Nov.  29,  1865 
Apr.    4,1866 

Methodist  Episcopal  Knoiville,  Tenn  

Temperance  Hall,  Knoxville,  Tenn.........  

Methodist  Church,  Carthage,  Tenn  

Presbyterian  Church,  ^Nashville,  Tenn  

First  Baptist  Chnrch,  Nashville.  Tenn  -  

114  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

This  rale  should  apply  in  all  cases,  and  certainly  none  the  less  in  dealing  with  a 
corporation  representing  a  great  charity — a  purely  eleemosynary  institution,  one 
"created  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  the  cause  of  Christianity  hy  disseminating 
religious  knowledge  and  useful  literary  and  scientific  information,"  and  one  which, 
under  the  organic  law  of  the  church,  sets  apart  and  devotes  its  entire  net  proceeds 
for  "the  benefit  of  the  traveling,  supernumerary,  superannuated,  and  worn-out 
preachers,  their  wives,  widows,  and  children." 

The  membership  of  the  church  represented  by  this  publishing  house  extends  over 
thirty-three  States  and  Territories  of  this  Union,  and  the  net  proceeds  of  the  pub- 
lishing house  are  distributed  over  the  same  territory,  and  the  statement  of  the  book 
committee  on  file  with  the  War  Claims  Committee  shows  that  "in  the  distribution  of 
its  charities  no  discriminations  are  made;  that  the  questions  have  never  been  asked, 
Was  he  loyal  or  disloyal!  Was  he  a  Federal  or  Confederate  soldier?  Is  he  a  Repub- 
lican, Democrat,  Populist,  or  Prohibitionist?  That  all  funds  have  heen  distributed 
without  reference  to  such  matters,  upon  a  just  and  equitable  basis,  giving  to  the 
needy  of  Illinois,  Indiana,  and  other  States  and  Territories  of  the  North  the  same 
pro  rata  that  is  accorded  to  the  needy  of  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  and  other  States  of 
the  South." 

Without  reference,  therefore,  to  the  war  or  the  relations  that  a  portion  of  the 
membership  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  may  have  sustained  to  it,  or 
the  inhibition  which  exempts  the  property  of  the.  book  agents'  corporation  from  con- 
fiscation, or  other  disabilities  arising  thereunder,  it  is  due  to  this  great  charity  to  aid 
in  its  restoration,  and  such  action  should  be  taken  by  Congress  as  will  be  productive 
of  this  result. 

Congress  in  its  wisdom  has  applied  the  apparently  universal  law  of  nations,  as 
embraced  in  General  Order  No.  100,  issued  by  the  Adjutant- General  and  approved  by 
President  Lincoln  in  1863,  which,  as  a  general  rule,  throws  the  garb  of  protection 
around  "the  property  belonging  to  churches,  to  hospitals,  or  other  establishments 
of  an  exclusively  charitable  character,"  and  gone  somewhat  beyond  it  in  dealing 
with  the  claims  presented  on  behalf  of  the  William  and  Mary  College  and  the  Wash- 
ington and  Lee  University,  destroyed  by  the  United  States  troops,  by  appropriating 
the  sum  necessary  to  secure  the  restoration  of  these  institutions.  From  the  use  of 
these  grounds  and  buildings  the  United  States  received  no  material  benefit,  and  yet 
Congress,  very  properly,  appropriated  money  to  restore  them.  How  much  more 
essential  and  proper,  therefore,  for  the  Government  to  provide  for  the  restoration  of 
the  charity  represented  by  this  publishing  house,  which  the  Army  of  the  United 
States  occupied,  and  which,  as  shown  by  the  statement  of  Colonel  Wills,  the  United 
States  officer  in  charge,  enabled  him,  in  the  "use  of  the  large  and  ample  machinery, 
extensive  buildings,  type,  and  printing  materials  of  said  publishing  house,  to  furnish 
the  Army  printing  at  an  enormous  saving  of  money  to  the  Government." 

The  petitions  laid  before  Congress  some  twenty  years  ago,  as  shown  by  H.  R.  352, 
submitted  to  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  "represent  that  many  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  of  all  sections,  earnestly  desire  that  Congress  will  give  just  relief  in 
this  matter.  It  is  believed  that  no  private  claim  was  ever  presented  to  Congress 
that  was  so  extensively  and  earnestly  supported  by  various  memorials  and  recom- 
mendations. That  4  are  from  State  legislatures;  1  from  the  General  Conference  of 
the  Colored  Methodist  Church;  others  from  8  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  viz:  Bishops  Morris,  Janes,  Simpson,  Ames,  Bowman,  Merrill, 
Peck,  and  Haven,  and  many  other  ministers  of  that  church;  others  from  die  mayor 
and  council  of  Nashville  and  Edgefiald,  Tenn.,  another  from  the  governor  and  most 
of  the  officials,  national  and  State,  and  municipal  of  Nashville;  another  from  all  the 
judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  Tennessee,  with  its  entire  bar;  another  from  about 
200  merchants,  bankers,  and  business  houses  of  Nashville ;  another  from  the  chiefs  of 
the  Indian  Nation  west  of  Arkansas;  others  from  all  the  annual  conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South ;  others  from  many  of  the  leading  ministers  oi 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  chiefly  in  New  York,  Baltimore,  Washington,  etc. ; 
and  others  from  nearly  a  hundred  colleges  and  high  schools  in  many  parts  of  the 
country ;  and  still  others  from  about  3,000  individual  petitioners  in  about  100  cities 
and  towns  in  25  States.  These  last  include  about  120  governors,  ex-governors,  judges, 
and  Members  of  Congress,  and  full  500  other  prominent  men  in  civil  office,  the 
remainder  being  mostly  lawyers,  doctors,  and  clergymen  of  all  denominations,  and 
other  substantial  citizens,  white  and  colored,  and  including  all  religious  beliefs- 
Jews,  Catholics,  and  Protestants." 

Need  anything  be  added?  If  so,  the  numerous  petitions  and  urgent  letters  of  ear- 
nest appeals  from  all  classes  of  people,  representing  the  various  church  denomina- 
tions; and  all  classes  and  shades  of  political  opinion  presented  to  Congress  at  this 
session,  and  written  to  Senators  and  Representatives,  will  attest  the  earnest  aim  to 
have  Congress  give  the  relief  prayed  for  by  such  action  as  may  be  necessary  to 
restore  this  charity. 

These  memorials,  letters,  and  petitions,  it  may  well  be  said,  "  indicate  a  sentiment 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  115 

which  is  honorable  to  the  people  and  most  gratifying  to  all  who  desire  that  our  past 
differences  may  cease  to  be  remembered  as  causes  of  present  or  future  discord,  but 
may  only  be  adverted  to  as  admonitions  to  warn  us  against  like  evils." 

Congress,  it  may  with  regret  be  said,  has  not  been  able  to  agree  upon  a  sum  satis- 
factory either  to  the  claimants  or  itself,  which  ought  to  be  paid,  and  it  is  because  of 
this  inability  to  agree  that  Senate  bill  2962  has  been  submitted.  This  bill  refers  the 
finding  of  the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  with  authority  to  render 
judgment,  in  the  hope  and  belief  that  speedy  and  proper  relief  may  be  thus  afforded, 
and  that  the  sum  thus  found  shall  be  just  alike  to  the  United  States  and  the  land- 
able  charity  the  claimant  represents. 

With  reference  to  the  suggestion,  if  it  should  be  made,  that  the  Court  of  Claims 
may  under  this  bill  render  an  excessive  judgment,  and  that  Congress  will  have  no 
right  to  revise  the  verdict,  it  would  seem  a  sufficient  answer  to  say  that  Congress 
has  in  a  number  of  important  cases  conferred  like  power,  and  in  other  cases  when 
such  authority  was  not  conferred,  Congress  has  not  modified  the  findings  of  the 
court.  It  is  hardly  probable,  therefore,  that  in  this  case  the  Court  of  Claims,  created 
by  Congress  to  deal  justly  with  claimants,  and  especially  to  protect  the  interests  of 
the  Government,  could  be  induced,  under  the  rigid  rules  of  that  court,  to  adjudge  a 
given  sum  to  be  due  which  ought  not  to  be  paid,  especially  since  this  bill  provides 
for  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court. 

With  reference  to  the  apprehension  that  the  passage  of  this  measure  may  open  the 
door  to  untold  millions  of  like  claims,  it  may  be  said  that  a  careful  investigation 
has  developed  the  following  facts;  There  have  been  presented  to  the  War  Depart- 
ment and  Congress,  including  the  Court  of  Claims,  on  accovint  of  damages,  etc.,  to 
church,  educational,  and  charitable  institutions  (exclusive  of  this  claim),  claims 
aggregating  $854,922.88.  Of  these  the  War  Department  has  paid  $102,270.29,  and  Con- 
gress $208,123.59,  leaving  but  $543,524  unpaid.  So  that  if  each  of  the  remaining 
claims  were  paid  in  full  (something  not  to  be  expected)  the  sum  would  not  be  very 
great;  and  yet  to  pay  them  would  only  be  in  keeping  with  the  recognized  law  of  all 
civilized  nations,  as  enunciated  in  General  Order  No.  100,  issued  by  the  Adjutant- 
General  and  approved  by  President  Lincoln  in  1863,  which  threw  the  garb  of  pro- 
tection around  "property  belonging  to  churches,  to  schools,  to  hospitals,  or  other 
establishments  of  an  exclusively  charitable  character." 

In  conclusion,  we  submit  that,  of  the  large  number  of  claims  paid  by  the  War 
Department  and  Congress,  probably  not  one  will  be  found  which  has  more  merit 
than  the  claim  represented  in  this  bill,  while  a  large  number  have  been  paid  infi- 
nitely less  meritorious. 

Mr.  GAINES.  Of  course,  I  immediately  introduced  the  bill.  I  knew 
in  a  general  way  that  it  was  a  meritorious  bill,  and  I  treated  it  as  such 
all  the  way  through.  I  gave  it  that  attention  which  I  thought  its  age, 
the  amount  involved,  the  justice  of  the  claim,  and  the  hardships  which 
it  had  undergone  in  Congress,  warranted.  In  other  words,  I  gave  it  all 
the  attention  that  I  was  able  to,  physically  and  mentally,  explaining 
it  to  my  colleagues  in  the  House  and  possibly  to  some  members  of  the 
Senate  later  on.  A  bill  referring  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims  was 
reported  in  due  time  from  the  Committee  on  Claims.  Learning  that 
the  Court  of  Claims  was  very  much  crowded  in  its  docket  (that  is  to 
say,  that  it  would  take  the  case  a  long  time  to  be  heard)  I  saw  some  of 
the  judges  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  and  some  of  the  other  officials  there, 
and  received  information  showing  that  it  would  take  four  or  five  years 
before  the  case  could  be  tried  if  it  were  to  go  to  the  Court  of  Claims. 

I  found  also  that  there  were  other  reasons  about  the  office  why,  if  the 
case  was  referred  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  there  was  "  not  sufficient  office 
force  to  take  it  up,  take  proof,  even  if  the  church  was  ready."  When 
J  learned  that  I  reported  it  to  the  friends  of  the  bill,  and  I  introduced 
the  bill  which  finally  passed  the  House  and  Senate,  making  a  direct 
appropriation  by  Congress  itself.  That  was  the  bill  which  finally 
became  the  law.  It  passed  the  House  and  was  sent  to  the  Senate.  I 
made  a  speech  in  the  House  on  the  merits  and  law  of  the  claim,  on 
January  15,  1898,  which  speech  has  been  printed  and  sent  out;  and 
later  on,  January  28, 1898,  when  the  bill  passed  the  House,  I  made  a 
speech  of  five  or  ten  minutes,  reviewing  the  law  of  the  case  in  reply  to 
very  vigorous  speeches  claiming  that  the  confiscation  laws  applied  to 


116  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

this  claim.  I  claimed  that  under  the  law  the  right  of  confiscation  did 
not  apply  to  corporations,  but  "  to  sentient  beings,"  and  I  cited  the  83d 
New  York  court  of  appeals  case  and  one  that  was  decided  by  Judge 
Strong,  of  Pennsylvania,  reported  in  16  Wallace.  Both  were  bank 
cases,  and  the  banks  won. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  I  think  you  cited  these  cases  to  me,  did  you  not? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes;  I  brought  them  to  your  attention.  That  is  all 
that  was  done  by  me  on  that  question — the  law. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  State  what  conversation  you  had  either  with  Barbee 
&  Smith,  the  book  agents,  or  with  Mr.  Stahlman. 

Mr.  GAINES.  You  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  we  had  a  great  Centen- 
nial Exposition  at  Nashville  last  year.  I  was  there  a  number  of  times. 
While  I  was  there  I  saw  Dr.  Barbee  once,  I  am  sure,  on  Church  street. 
My  home  is  between  his  home  and  the  publishing  house,  and  I  met  him 
on  the  street.  I  also  saw  Mr.  Smith,  I  think,  at  the  corner  of  Church 
and  Cherry  streets,  at  a  noted  drug  store.  I  saw  Mr.  Smith  another 
time  last  year  at  Old  Point  Comfort,  where  I  was  resting.  I  asked  him 
what  there  was  about  the  question  of  lobby  fees. 

In  the  statement  of  facts  appended  to  the  letter  which  I  have  put  in 
evidence,  reference  is  made  to  the  indorsement  of  the  claim  by  several 
bishops  of  the  Methodist  Church  North,  viz — I  read  from  page  9: 
"Bishops  Morris,  Janes,  Simpson,  Ames,  Bowman,  Merrill,  Peck,  and 
Haven;"  also  many  other  ministers  of  that  church.  I  wanted  to  get 
those  papers  showing  their  indorsement.  I  learned,  on  inquiry,  that 
somebody  in  Washington  held  those  papers  "for  past  services  in  look- 
ing after  the  claim  in  Congress."  I  wanted  to  know  by  what  right  this 
person  held  them,  and  in  that  way  the  matter  was  brought  sharply  to 
their  attention  as  well  as  my  own.  Dr.  Barbee  said  to  me:  "We  do 
not  owe  anybody  a  cent  for  this;  we  are  not  going  to  lay  out  a  cent; 
it  is  a  just  claim,  and  ought  to  win  on  its  merits.  We  have  not  made 
any  contract  and  are  not  going  to." 

Senator  CLAY.  You  mean  a  contract  for  fees? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes;  we  were  talking  about  fees.  His  word  went  as 
far  with  me  as  that  of  any  man  in  this  world.  I  have  known  him  fifteen 
years.  I  have  known  him  as  one  of  the  best  citizens  of  Tennessee  and 
one  of  the  best  preachers.  He  was  my  pastor  for  a  number  of  years, 
and  I  had  other  intimate  associations  with  him  in  social  life,  which 
made  him  well  known  to  me.  Of  course,  that  dismissed  the  matter 
from  my  mind  and  armed  me  with  the  determination  to  go  right  on  and 
obtain  those  papers. 

Senator  CLAY.  Did  you  infer  from  what  Dr.  Barbee  said  that  no  fees 
were  to  be  paid? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes,  of  course.  The  whole  idea  of  fees  was  entirely 
eliminated  from  my  mind  by  what  he  said.  In  addition  to  that,  I  was 
led  to  a  similar  conclusion  by  the  letter  which  I  have  just  read,  in  which 
it  is  said  that  Mr.  Stahlman  was  here  on  other  business — "other  mat- 
ters," as  their  letter  says. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Have  you  given  the  name  of  the  person  who 
held  the  papers  showing  the  indorsements  of  the  bishops? 

Mr.  GAINES.  I  did  not  know  his  name  at  that  time.  I  learned  after- 
wards that  he  was  a  man  named  Movers.  I  never  saw  the  gentleman 
in  my  life  to  know  him. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  When  was  this  conversation  about  fees  held  with 
Dr.  Barbee  t 

Mr.  GAINES.  It  was  along  in  the  spring  or  summer  of  last  year,  in 
Nashville. 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  117 

The  CHAIRMAN.  In  1897  T 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes,  sir;  while  this  measure  was  pending.  I  had  never 
talked  with  him  about  the  claim  in  person.  All  that  I  knew  about  it 
was  what  was  set  out  in  this  letter  and  what  I  had  heard  in  conversa- 
tions as  to  some  valuable  papers,  indorsements  of  bishops  of  the 
M.  E.  Church  North,  being  withheld  without  any  right.  At  a  later 
date,  or  at  least  some  time  during  the  spring  of  1897,  I  saw  Mr.  Smith, 
as  I  have  stated,  and  related  all  this  to  him ;  and  Mr.  Smith  said  prac- 
tically what  Mr.  Barbee  had  said.  In  substance  it  was  the  same,  and 
in  effect  it  was  the  same;  that  is,  that  they  did  not  intend  to  pay  any 
fee;  that  they  did  not  owe  anybody  any  fee;  that  they  did  not  have 
any  contract  made,  and  that  they  were  not  going  to  make  any  contract. 
I  did  not  know  anybody  else  in  the  matter,  and  nobody  else  ever  wrote 
to  me  about  it.  Except  as  to  these  particular  conversations,  you  gen- 
tlemen know  as  much  about  the  fee  as  I  do.  I  saw  Mr.  Smith  at  Old 
Point  Comfort.  He  was  there  a  week  or  ten  days,  and  so  was  I. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  that  conversation  subsequent  to  the  other  one 
you  had  with  him? 

Mr.  GAINES.  I  do  not  recollect.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  it  was 
after  I  had  the  conversation  with  Dr.  Barbee.  It  was  late  in  the  sum- 
mer— after  Congress  adjourned. 

Senator  PASCO.  In  the  summer  of  1897! 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes.  I  had  the  Old  Point  Comfort  conversation  late  in 
the  summer,  after  Congress  adjourned;  at  all  events  about  that  time. 

Senator  CLAY.  When  did  Congress  adjourn? 

Mr.  GAINES.  I  think  on  the  29th  of  July,  1897.  I  had  previously  had 
a  conversation  with  him  at  the  drug  store,  corner  of  Church  and  Cherry 
streets,  Nashville,  as  I  have  stated.  His  statement  to  me  disabused 
my  mind  entirely  of  the  idea  that  they  had  made  a  contract  with  any- 
body; that  they  owed  anybody,  or  that  Moyers  and  these  other  people 
had  any  right  in  the  world  to  keep  their  papers. 

Under  that  authority  and  those  circumstances  I  felt  like  carrying  the 
war  into  Africa,  and  I  was  going  to  do  it  unless  those  papers  were  given 
up.  I  felt  that  the  claim  was  a  just  one  and  I  was  going  to  the  bottom 
of  it.  I  would  have  made  an  effort  to  get  the  papers,  but  in  the  mean- 
time the  Northern  Methodist  bishops  and  ministers  had  got  together 
at  Washington  and  practically  gave  the  same  kind  of  an  indorsement 
to  the  claim.  They  were  very  distinguished  divines.  One  of  them  was 
Bishop  Hurst,  who  had  formerly  indorsed  it;  lives  in  this  city  now. 
That  is  all  that  I  remember  of  personal  conversation  with  these  gentle- 
men. 

Senator  STEWART.  You  never  got  the  papers,  did  you? 

Mr.  GAINES.  No,  sir.  I  would  have  done  so  or  would  have  seen  Mr. 
Moyer  about  them  but  for  the  fact  that  these  bishops  had  given  sub- 
stantially the  same  kind  of  an  indorsement  subsequently.  My  conver- 
sation with  Mr.  Smith  was,  in  substance,  what  Dr.  Barbee  had  said — 
that  is,  that  they  had  made  no  contract;  that  they  did  not  owe  anybody 
a  cent,  and  that,  in  effect,  I  had  a  right  to  get  the  papers  from  Moyer; 
that  they  were  not  going  to  spend  any  money,  and  that  the  bill  ought 
to  pass  on  its  own  merits.  Mr.  Smith  is  a  man  of  splendid  character. 
He  is  one  of  our  best  citizens.  He  was  my  Sabbath  school  superin- 
tendent and  my  neighbor,  and  Dr.  Barbee  was  my  neighbor  and  pastor. 
Their  word  in  Nashville  would  have  gone  as  far  as  any  other  man's  up  to 
the  time  of  this  occurrence.  What  the  feeling  there  is  now  I  do  not 
know  j  I  have  not  been  home  since  January. 


118  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Later  on  the  matter  went  into  the  Senate,  and  there  (you  may  say,  for 
the  first  time)  the  question  of  lobby  fees  broke  out  vigorously.  I  then 
saw  Senator  Bate  several  times  and  told  him  the  substance  of  my  con- 
versation with  Mr.  Smith  and  Dr.  Barbee. 

Senator  CLAY.  You  also  saw  Senator  Hoar? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes ;  a  little  later  on.  We  will  get  along  in  chrono- 
logical order.  I  told  Senator  Bate  that  Mr.  Stahlman  had  said  to  me 
(We — Major  Stahlman  and  I — both  boarded  at  the  same  hotel  and  some- 
times ate  at  the  same  table)  that  he  was  "not  to  get  a  cent  out  of  the 
claim ; "  that  his  folks  belong  to  the  church  (which  I  knew  to  be  a  fact) ; 
that  he  was  connected  with  the  church  and  worshiped  there,  and  that 
what  he  was  doing  was  for  the  benefit  of  the  church,  and  was  of  a 
charitable  order.  I  had  repeated  conversations  with  Mr.  Stahlman  as 
the  matter  grew  warmer  and  warmer.  One  evening  after  dinner  1  went 
over  to  his  table  and  spoke  to  him  about  something;  I  do  not  recollect 
what.  He  said  to  me,  "  Senator  Bate  told  me  to  stay  away  from  the  Sen- 
ate to-day  ;  that  I  was  injuring  the  claim  by  being  up  there."  He  seemed 
very  much  distressed  about  it.  His  face  was  flushed  and  he  was  very 
anxious.  He  said  to  me,  "I  do  not  know  what  to  do.  I  am  willing  to 
do  all  that  I  can  for  the  church,  but  of  course  if  I  am  hurting  the  claim 
by  going  to  the  Capitol  I  will  just  stay  away  from  there  and  let  the 
matter  drop."  I  repeated  to  him  substantially  the  conversation  which 
I  had  had  with  Mr.  Smith  and  Dr.  Barbee,  and  I  said  to  him,  "  Stay 
away  from  up  there  and  telegraph  to  Dr.  Barbee  to  come  here  at  once. 
He  can  settle  it  in  a  minute."  He  said,  "I  will  do  that.'7 

The  matter  went  along  in  that  way  until  I  thought  that  time  enough 
had  elapsed  (thirty-six  or  forty  hours)  for  Dr.  Barbee  to  be  here.  I 
asked  Mr.  Stahlman  if  he  had  heard  from  Dr.  Barbee,  and  he  said, 
"Not  a  word;  and  I  do  not  understand  it."  I  said  to  him,  "  You  tele- 
graph to  him  that  I  say  to  come  immediately."  He  said  that  he  would, 
and  that  he  would  send  the  dispatch  at  once.  I  do  not  think  that  Dr. 
Barbee  came.  In  the  meantime  I  met  Stahlman  (of  course  every  day  I 
met  him  at  the  hotel) ;  1  said  to  him,  "I  will  go  to  my  room  and  get  a 
letter  which  Barbee  &  Smith  wrote  to  me,  and  which  says  that  you 
are  up  here  on  other  business;  that  you  are  a  friend  of  the  church, 
and  cooperating  with  them  as  a  friend  of  the  church,  and  because  of 
your  family  connection  with  it."  I  went  to  my  room,  got  out  this  letter, 
carried  it  to  him,  and  said,  "  Now,  you  take  this  letter  and  defend  your- 
self from  the  charge  that  you  are  lobbying  under  a  contract  for  this 
claim."  He  either  kept  the  letter  until  the  bill  was  passed,  and  then 
gave  it  back  to  me,  or  (and  my  impression  is)  he  took  a  copy  of  it. 

On  the  day  the  bill  passed  the  Senate  some  one  came  over  to  the 
House  and  said  that  they  had  got  the  Methodist  Church  question  up  in 
the  Senate,  and  that  they  were  fighting  the  matter  in  regard  to  lobby 
fees.  I  came  over  to  the  Senate  and  went  to  Senator  Pasco's  desk, 
near  the  middle  door,  you  know,  and  asked  him  the  status  of  the  case. 
He  said,  "They  have  got  up  the  question  of  lobby  fees,  but  I  have  got 
a  telegram  from  Barbee  &  Smith  which  says  there  is  nothing  in  that 
story."  Senator  Bate  was  addressing  the  Senate  at  the  time.  As  soon 
as  he  sat  down  I  went  to  Senator  Bate's  desk  and  got  practically  the 
same  answer  or  information  that  Senator  Pasco  had  given  me.  I  then 
reported  to  him  the  substance  of  my  conversation  with  Messrs.  Barbee  & 
Smith,  and  he  said,  "Major  Stahlman  has  told  me,  and  I  have  got  a  tele- 
gram, too,  from  Barbee  &  Smith,  which  says  that  there  is  nothing  in  it." 
At  that  time  Senator  Hoar  made  an  observation  upon  the  question  of 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  119 

putting  an  amendment  upon  the  bill  against  paying  lobby  fees,  or  fixing 
a  reasonable  fee  to  be  paid.  Then  Senator  Lodge  took  the  floor. 
While  he  was  making  his  speech,  I  said,  "I  will  go  over  and  see  Sen- 
ator Hoar."  I  did  not  know  him  personally,  and  he  alludes  to  me  in 
the  Record  as  "the  Representative  from  the  Nashville  district,"  with- 
out giving  my  name.  I  stated  to  Senator  Hoar  what  Dr.  Barbee  and 
Mr.  Smith  had  said  to  me.  I  told  him  that  these  men  were  men  of  very 
high  character  in  our  city.  He  tben  got  up  and  made  a  statement  in 
the  Senate  in  my  presence,  while  1  was  sitting  by  his  side.  In  a  few 
minutes  the  bill  passed.  That  is  practically  all  that  I  know  about  it, 
except  as  to  what  subsequently  occurred  and  except  what  I  have  learned 
through  the  papers,  and,  still  later,  from  some  letters  alluding  in  a  gen- 
eral way  to  the  matter. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  In  your  conversation  with  Mr.  Smith  at  the 
drug  store  in  Nashville,  was  not  the  conversation  almost  entirely  in 
regard  to  the  fees  of  the  past,  as  contracted  for  in  the  past! 

Mr.  GAINES.  The  conversation  brought  out  generally  the  matter  which 
I  had  sharply  in  my  mind,  but  at  the  same  time  the  question  of  Mr. 
Stahlman's  employment  was  also  discussed.  I  alluded  to  this  letter 
which  I  have  read  to  the  committee,  and  said  you  wrote  to  me  that 
Major  Stahlman  was  up  in  Washington  as  a  friend  of  the  church  and 
on  other  business,  and  that  he  was  interested  in  helping  the  matter 
along  as  a  friend  of  the  church,  or  something  like  that  in  substance. 
I  said  to  him  that  I  had  defended  Major  Stahlman  against  the 
charge. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Did  not  the  conversation  refer  almost  entirely  to  the 
payment  of  money?  Did  it  exclude  the  idea  of  a  contingent  fee? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Absolutely.  The  question  of  a  fee  to  be  paid  was  abso- 
lutely eliminated  from  my  mind,  and  on  that  I  stood  firmly  all  through 
the  matter.  I  would  have  practically  sworn  by  what  these  gentlemen 
said  to  me. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  The  main  purpose  of  the  conversation  was  simply  in 
reference  to  past  transactions? 

Mr.  GAINES.  It  was  in  reference  to  the  question  of  lobby  fees  and 
lobbyists.  I  did  not  want  to  have  a  lot  of  lobbyists  hanging  around 
defending,  without  at  least  authority,  this  measure,  and  if  they  were 
there  I  wanted  to  know  who  they  were  and  what  right  they  had  to  act 
in  the  matter.  I  understood  that  one  of  these  gentlemen,  Mr.  Moyer, 
was  fighting  the  bill  because  he  claimed  he  had  not  been  treated  right — 
paid  a  lobby  fee. 

Senator  FAIRBANKS.  Who  was  that? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Mr.  Moyer,  and  probably  some  others. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Do  you  know  how  long  Moyer  had  charge  of  the 
claim  ? 

Mr.  GAINES.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  Are  you  a  lawyer? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes. 

Mr.  GOLYAR.  Had  you  examined  this  bill  on  its  merits  before  you 
made  a  speech  in  its  favor? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Certainly  I  did ;  and  my  speech  indicates  that. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  took  the  ground  generally  that  it  was  a  just  claim  ? 

Mr.  GAINES.  Absolutely,  and  that  it  had  been  repeatedly  reported 
by  the  committees  of  the  House  and  Senate. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Here  is  what  is  said  in  this  letter  which  you  have  read 
in  reference  to  Mr.  Stahlman:  "Mr.  Stahlman,  in  connection  with  a 


120  METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

large  number  of  other  matters,  has  been  giving  our  measure  some 
attention." 

Mr.  GAINES.  Yes,  sir;  and,  in  a  general  way,  I  knew  that  Major 
Stahlman  had  other  matters  here.  I  think  probably  he  had  some  Ten- 
nessee matter  in  charge — the  case  of  the  McMiunville  railroad  claim. 
I  do  not  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what  Major  Stahl man's  other  busi- 
ness was  here.  I  have  a  letter  here  from  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith,  dated 
March,  1897,  from  which  I  will  read  an  extract,  to  show  you  that  I 
immediately  took  the  matter  up:  "  We  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  favors  of  the  20th  and  22d,  and  to  thank  you  for  having  intro- 
duced the  bill."  I  would  show  you  copies  of  my  communications  to 
which  they  referred,  but  at  that  time  I  had  not  my  copying  book  with 
me,  and  I  just  wrote  to  them  what  I  had  done,  without  taking  a  copy 
of  my  reply. 

Adjourned  until  to-morrow,  July  2,  at  10  a.  m. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  0.,  July  2, 1898. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 

Present:  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Fairbanks,  Pasco,  Clay,  and 
Stewart. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SENATOR  TUELEY,  OF  TENNESSEE. 

Hon.  THOMAS  B.  TURLEY,  sworn  and  examined. 

Senator  PASOO.  State  in  your  own  way  and  in  your  own  language, 
and  as  briefly  as  convenient,  any  interviews  that  you  have  had  with 
the  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  book  concern,  or  with  Mr.  Stahlman, 
their  attorney,  in  reference  to  the  question  of  a  fee  to  be  paid  by  the 
book  agents  to  Mr.  Stahlman,  or  in  reference  to  any  contract  for  the 
payment  of  a  fee  in  connection  with  the  publishing  house  claim. 

Senator  TURLEY.  I  never  had  any  interview  with  the  book  agents  on 
the  subject.  I  did  have  several  conversations  with  Mr.  Stahlman  in 
which  this  subject  came  up.  The  exact  number  of  those  conversations 
I  can  not  recollect.  There  may  have  been  only  two,  or  probably  three. 
I  do  not  recall  exactly  how  the  subject  came  up,  but  I  know  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  told  me  that  he  was  not  to  get  a  cent  of  the  claim;  that  there 
was  no  fee  to  be  paid  except  a  small  amount  to  Mr.  Sam  Donalson ;  that 
he  had  arranged  so  that  Mr.  Donalson  would  get  a  few  thousand  dol- 
lars for  services  which  he  had  rendered  about  the  matter,  but  beyond 
that  nothing  was  to  be  paid.  His  own  language  was  that  he  was  not 
to  get  a  cent.  I  believe  that  is  about  the  substance  of  the  conversa- 
tions.* 1  can  not  fix  the  date,  except  that  I  know  it  was  about  the  time 
that  the  bill  passed. 

Senator  PASCO.  Nearly  about  that  time? 

Mr.  TURLEY.  It  was  between  the  time  when  I  returned  to  this  city 
from  Nashville,  in  February,  and  the  time  when  the  bill  passed. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  is,  when  you  returned  after  your  election! 

Mr.  TURLEY.  Yes;  after  my  election.  The  only  other  matter  in  con- 
versation about  the  subject  was  this:  In  one  of  the  conversations  Mr. 
Stahlman  said  that  1  would  be  astonished  if  he  were  to  tell  me  the 
names  and  character  of  the  men  who  were  trying  to  get  the  Methodist 
Church  people  to  employ  them  in  the  matter,  on  the  theory  or  idea  that 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH.  121 

no  claim  could  be  got  through  Congress  unless  somebody  was  employed 
to  look  after  it;  but  that  he  had  told  the  book  agents  to  steer  clear  of 
them  and  not  to  employ  anybody,  as  there  was  no  need  for  it.  That  is 
about  all  that  I  recollect  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  Was  that  conversation  a  voluntary  disclosure 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Stahlman,  or  did  you  ask  him  about  it? 

Mr.  TURLEY.  I  have  thought  about  that,  but  I  can  not  recall  whether 
when  the  matter  first  came  up  I  asked  him  about  it  or  whether  he 
volunteered  the  statement.  I  had  heard  my  colleague,  Senator  Bate, 
say  to  me  that  he  did  not  understand  why  Mr.  Stahlman  was  connected 
with  the  matter,  and  I  had  heard  some  talk  that  Mr.  Stahlmaii  was  to 
get  a  fee  out  of  it;  but  whether  I  asked  the  question,  or  whether  it 
came  up  in  the  way  of  conversation,  I  do  not  remember.  My  first 
interview  with  him  grew  out  of  the  fact  that  I  had  been  informed  that 
he  knew  all  the  facts  about  the  case;  and  it  was  to  get  him  to  tell'me 
how  I  could  get  at  the  facts,  so  that,  if  necessary,  I  could  give  an 
intelligent  vote  in  the  Senate,  that  I  talked  with  him. 

Mr.  COLYAB.  You  were  a  friend  of  the  measure  since  the  time  you 
came  into  the  Senate? 

Mr.  TURLEY.  Yes;  I  think  it  was  one  of  the  first  things  that  I  got 
any  papers  or  documents  about. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Did  you  look  into  the  merits  of  the  claim? 

Senator  TURLEY.  Yes;  I  read  all  the  reports  and  papers  and  docu- 
ments that  I  could  get  hold  of  in  regard  to  the  claim,  and  I  also  looked 
into  the  law  somewhat. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  are  a  lawyer,  I  believe? 

Senator  TURLEY.  Yes;  I  am  a  lawyer. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  And  you  were  convinced  that  the  claim  had  a  substan- 
tial basis? 

Senator  TURLEY.  Yes ;  that  was  my  belief.  I  believed  that  it  was  a 
just  claim. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  thought  it  a  legal  and  a  just  claim? 

Senator  TURLEY.  I  did  not  examine  fully  as  to  whether  the  United 
States  Government  was  technically  bound  for  it  in  law.  On  that  ques- 
tion I  did  not  examine  as  fully  as  I  would  have  done  if  it  had  been  a 
matter  in  court  and  I  was  looking  at  it  as  a  judge  or  as  a  lawyer.  I 
examined  to  see  what  had  been  the  precedents  with  regard  to  claims  of 
that  kind,  and  I  found  that  it  had  been  the  custom  of  the  Government 
to  pay  them  whenever  they  had  merit  and  equity  in  them.  Having 
found  out  that  fact,  I  did  not  prosecute  the  legal  investigation  any  fur- 
ther. I  did  look  at  some  law  books  that  Mr.  Gaines  had  used  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  or,  rather,  I  looked  at  quotations  from  them. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  Did  you  go  with  Mr.  Stahlman  to  the 
Treasury  ? 

Senator  TURLEY.  No,  sir. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  Did  Mr.  Stahlman  apply  to  you.  to  go  up  and  get  the 
warrant? 

Senator  TURLEY.  He  did.  He  came  to  my  hotel  and  showed  me  the 
form  of  receipt  which  he  had  prepared  for  Barbee  &  Smith  to  execute. 
He  asked  me  if  I  would  go  to  the  Treasury  with  him  and  have  an 
interview  with  the  Treasurer  and  see  whether  that  was  the  proper 
form.  I  told  him  that  if  he  needed  me  I  would  do  it;  but  that  I  did 
not  think  he  needed  me.  A  day  or  two  afterwards  he  told  me  that  he 
had  got  the  matter  fixed.  I  think  he  said  that  Mr.  Gaines  had  gone 
with  him.  I  did  not  go  to  the  Treasury  with  him. 


122  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  T.  W.  SIMS. 

Hon.  T.  W.  SIMS,  a  Bepresentative  from  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
sworn  and  examined. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  are  a  Member  of  the  House  from  the  State  of 
Tennessee? 

Mr.  SIMS.  Yes,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  We  desire  to  pub  on  record  statements  of  members 
of  the  House  and  Senate  with  reference  to  conversations  with  the  book 
agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South  (if  they  liad  any)  or 
with  Mr.  Stahlmau.  We  invited  you  over  in  order  to  give  you  the 
same  opportunity  that  we  gave  to  other  Members  and  Senators.  We 
would  like,  if  you  know  anything  about  the  subject,  to  take  your 
testimony. 

Mr.  SIMS.  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Stahlman  and  Col.  Jack 
Baker  at  the  time  the  claim  was  pending  before  the  House.  I  had  none 
with  the  book  agents.  I  did  not  know  them  then  and  I  do  not  know 
them  yet.  I  never  met  them. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  do  not  know  the  book  agents,  Barbee  &  Smith, 
personally? 

Mr.  SIMS.  I  do  not.  I  have  seen  a  gentleman  at  the  hotel  who  I  was 
told  was  Dr.  Barbee,  but  I  was  not  presented  to  him  personally. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Stahlman  ? 

Mr.  SIMS.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  How  long  have  you  known  him  ? 

Mr.  SIMS.  I  have  known  him  personally  only  since  this  matter  came 
up.  I  had  seen  him  many  a  time  in  Nashville,  but  I  never  had  met 
him  personally  before. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  purpose  of  this  investigation  is  to  find  out  facts 
in  regard  to  statements  made  in  connection  with  the  collection  of  this 
claim.  You  may  make  such  a  statement  in  your  own  way  so  as  to  give 
the  committee  any  information  that  you  have  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  SIMS.  After  the  bill  was  up  in  the  House,  or  at  least  while  efforts 
were  being  made  to  bring  it  up  in  the  House,  I  received  a  large  num- 
ber of  letters,  reaching  into  the  hundreds — 1  know  there  were  over  100, 
perhaps  as  many  as  300 — from  constituents  of  my  own  in  my  district. 
Nearly  all  of  them  inclosed  a  letter  from  Barbee  &  Smith,  and  a  letter 
to  them  from  Mr.  Stahlman,  and  appended  to  them  was  the  following 
note,  which  is  not  signed  at  all : 

NOTE. 

Our  information  from  Washington  is  to  the  effect  that  almost  any  sort  of  an  earnest, 
active  effort  upon  the  part  of  the  Tennessee  delegation  will  pass  our  bill  during  the 
present  session,  and  if  we  fail  the  fault  will  rest  largely  with  Tennessee  Members. 
The  Tennessee  delegation  ought  to  pass  this  bill  without  another  word  from  us. 
Virginia  delegations,  by  united  effort,  have  passed  two  measures  infinitely  less 
meritorious,  to  wit,  the  Washington  aud  Lee  University,  and  William  and  Mary 
College.  It  will  be  a  reflection  upon  Tennessee  Members  in  Congress,  in  view  of 
these  precedents,  if  they  shall  fail,  with  the  measure  in  its  present  shape,  to  pass  our 
bill  early  in  the  session.  Please  convey  this  information  to  the  Member  from  your 
district  in  such  a  way  as  to  cause  him  to  feel  that  his  active  assistance  is  most  essen- 
tial. There  are  no  reasons  why  you  may  not  send  him  the  pamphlet  herewith 
inclosed,  which  will  give  him  facts  bearing  directly  upon  the  merits  of  our  claim. 
Please  don't  fail  to  act  promptly, -and  enlist  as  many  friends  in  your  section  as  you 
can  to  write  letters  to  your  Member  of  Congress. 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  123 

OUR  CLAIM  AGAINST  THK  GOVERNMENT. 

PUBLISHING  HOUSE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH  SOUTH, 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  December  21,  1897. 

DEAR  BROTHER:  We  hasten  to  transmit  to  the  brethren  copy  of  a  communication 
which  we  have  just  received  from  Washington,  and  which  shows  a  favorable,  yet 
critical,  condition  of  affairs  respecting  our  claim  against  the  Government,  and  indi- 
cates the  necessity  for  some  active  work  among  the  brethren.  The  letter  is  as 
follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  December  16,  1897. 

Messrs.  BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Boole  Agents,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

GENTLEMEN:  When  the  United  States  Army  took  possession  of  the  publishing 
house  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  the  estimated  value  of  the  plant 
was  $700,000.  When  the  Government  in  1865  returned  the  property  to  its  owners  its 
assets,  including  realty,  were  estimated  approximately  at  about  $200,000,  showing  a 
loss  in  the  value  of  the  property  of  about  $500,000,  mainly  due  to  its  use  and  abnse 
by  the  United  States  Army  during  the  war.  When,  therefore,  in  1877,  the  agent  of 
the  publishing  ho ase  agreed  to  accept  $288,000,  he  went  as  far  as  he  was  authorized  to 
go  in  his  endeavor  to  reach  a  settlement  of  the  claim,  and  the  sum  of  $288,000  is 
believed  to  be  considerably  less  than  would  be  granted  by  the  Court  of  Claims ;  and 
yet,  to  avoid  delay  incident  to  the  prosecution  of  the  claim  before  the  Court  of  Claims 
(which  in  a  number  of  cases  pending  has  extended  over  a  period  of  three  to  ten  years), 
a  direct  appropriation  is  considered  infinitely  preferable.  Realizing  this,  we  have 
secured  favorable  reports  from  House  and  Senate  committees  for  a  direct  appropriation 
of  $288,000,  and  the  bills  are  on  the  Calendar,  so  that  they  may  be  reached  early  after 
the  holidays. 

The  action  we  are  asking  Congress  to  take  has  many  precedents.  By  an  order 
issued  by  the  War  Department  on  April  24,  1863,  approved  by  President  Lincoln, 
"all  property  belonging  to  churches,  colleges,  schools,  and  educational  institutions 
was  exempt  from  the  hostilities  of  war."  In  other  words,  such  property  was  not  to 
be  used,  injured,  or  destroyed,  except  in  cases  of  extreme  necessity,  and  in  such  cases 
such  use  or  injury  was  to  be  paid  for.  Acting  under  this  rule  (which,  by  the  way, 
is  one  followed  by  all  of  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world),  the  War  Department 
and  Congress  have  paid  a  large  number  of  claims,  aggregating  about  $500,000.  The 
following  are  some  of  the  claims  paid  by  direct  appropriations  during  the  past  few 
years : 

Kentucky  University  at  Lexington,  Ky.,  use,  occupation,  and  injury $25, 000. 00 

Kentucky  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  Association,  use,  occupation,  and 
injury 25,000.00 

East  Tennessee  University,  use,  occupation,  and  inj nry 18, 500. 00 

University  of  Alabama,  for  loss  of  building  by  fire  during  military  opera- 
tions, 46,080  acres  of  public  land  to  be  applied  to  the  erection  of  suita- 
ble buildings. 

William  and  Mary  College,  of  Virginia,  destroyed  by  fire  immediately 
after  a  conflict  between  the  Union  and  Confederate  forces 64, 000. 00 

Washington  and  Lee  University,  injury  to  building,  apparatus,  and  libra- 
ries by  soldiers  without  authority 17, 848. 00 

Protestant  Episcopal  Theological  Seminary,  Alexandria,  Va.,  use,  occupa- 
tion, and  injury 20,000.00 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  of  Charles  County,  Md.,  use,  occupation,  and 
injury 4,035.50 

Roman  Catholic  Church  at  Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  for  use  and  injury 18, 729. 09 

All  of  these  claims,  as  already  stated,  were  paid  by  direct  appropriation  from  Con- 
gress without  the  intervention  of  the  Court  of  Claims ;  and,  while  these  claims  were 
meritorious  and  ought  to  have  been  paid,  they  were  not  as  meritorious  as  your  Pub- 
lishing House  claim.  Congress  has,  in  fact,  paid  no  claim  which  in  merit  approx- 
imates the  claim  of  the  Publishing  House. 

The  Publishing  House,  with  its  magnificent  machinery,  was  taken  possession  of 
by  the  Army;  kept  for  nearly  two  years;  used  for  printing  blanks  for  the  armies  of 
the  Cumberland  and  Mississippi;  and  the  Government,  as  shown  by  the  testimony, 
saved  large  sums  of  money  in  the  printing  of  these  blanks  and  books.  Whereas  in 
the  case  of  the  Washington  and  Lee  University,  the  William  and  Mary  College,  and 
the  Alabama  University  no  benefits  whatever  were  derived  by  the  Government; 
while  in  the  cases  of  the  Kentucky  University,  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Seminary, 
the  Catholic  churches  of  Chattanooga  and  Charles  County,  Md.,  and  others,  the 
benefits  derived  by  the  Government  in  their  use  and  occupation  were  but  a  trifle  as 
compared  with  the  large  benefits  derived  from  the  use  of  the  Publishing  House. 
And  yet  these  claims  have  been  paid,  while  your  claim  remains  unpaid.  The  reasons, 


124  METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

in  my  judgment,  are  apparent.  In  the  former  cases  a  number  of  Southern  mem- 
bers worked  energetically  to  pass  the  bills.  In  your  case  members  seem  inactive  and 
apparently  indifferent.  This  applies  to  members  without  regard  to  chnrch  or  party 
affiliation. 

A  most  remarkable  fact  in  connection  with  the  payment  of  war  claims  is  that 
churches  with  comparatively  little  numerical  strength  or  influence  in  our  section 
have  succeeded  in  getting  their  claims  paid,  while  our  claim,  backed  by  the  largest 
membership  of  any  in  the  South,  has  been  allowed  to  remain  unadjusted  for  over 
thirty  years.  And  this  failure  ia  not  due  to  sectional  prejudice,  vrhich  applies 
equally  to  all  churches  and  schools.  Nor  ia  it  due  to  the  erroneous  assumption  that 
our  chnrch  was  in  a  measure  largely  responsible  for  the  war.  McPherson's  "His- 
tory of  the  Churches  and  the  War"  shows  that  all  denominations  in  the  South 
were  equally  active  in  their  endeavor  to  promote  the  success  of  the  Southern  cause. 
Moreover,  the  courts  have  wisely  held  that  a  corporate  body,  such  as  a  school  or 
church,  representing  the  educational  and  religious  interests  of  a  community,  can  not 
be  held  to  be  disloyal;  and  all  of  the  legislation  had  by  Congress  for  the  relief  of 
the  institutions  named  proceeded  upon  this  idea,  which  applies  to  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Chnrch  South  with  as  much  force  as  to  any  other. 

I  say,  therefore,  and  with  much  disappointment  and  regret,  that  our  trouble  lies 
mainly  in  the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  members  are  unmindful  of  your  interest. 
I  was  informed  yesterday  and  again  to-day  that  certain  leading  members  from  the 
South,  who  had  told  me  and  had  written  their  constituents  that  they  would  support 
your  bill,  had  given  expressions  of  indifference  as  to  the  result.  Of  course,  if  mem- 
bers from  our  section  act  that  way,  it  will  be  found  practically  impossible  to  interest 
a  sufficient  number  of  Northern,  Eastern,  and  Western  Congressmen  and  Senators 
to  secure  its  passage. 

Thirty-four  years  have  elapsed  since  our  property  was  taken  possession  of  by  the 
Army ;  and  now  that  we  have  at  last  gotten  to  the  point  where  relief  is  within  reach, 
it  begins  to  look  as  though  we  may  be  prevented  from  securing  it  by  the  inaction 
of  Members  of  Congress  from  our  own  section. 

H.  R.  4829,  "for  the  relief  of  the  Book  Agents,"  is  the  bill  we  wish  to  pass.  It 
has  the  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  War  Claims;  in  fact,  a  similar  bill  has 
been  recommended  by  four  different  committees  during  four  previous  sessions  of  Con- 
gress. This  bill  appropriates  $288,000.  If  this  sum  had  been  paid  at  the  close  of 
the  war,  and  had  with  accrued  interest  from  year  to  year  been  loaned  at  the  rate  of 
4  per  cent  per  annum,  the  Publishing  House  would  to-day  have  $1,000,976.40  in  its 
treasury. 

If  it  had  been  loaned  at  6  per  cent,  it  would  to-day  hare  $1,855,497.82  in  ita 
treasury. 

And  £f  it  had  been  loaned  at  8  per  cent  (the  prevailing  rate  of  interest  in  Ten- 
nessee and  the  South),  it  would  to-day  have  $3,379,565.70  in  its  treasury. 

But  suppose  the  Government  had  paid  only  half  the  amount — i.  e.,  $144,000,  and 
had  paid  that  money  when  it  surrendered  the  property,  the  $144,000  loaned  at  the 
rate  of  4  per  cent  per  annum  with  accrued  interest  from  year  to  year,  would  have 
put  into  the  treasury  of  the  publishing  house  at  the  end  of  thirty-two  years  $504,- 
901.15;  at  the  rate  of  6  per  cent,  $927,220.04;  and  at  the  rate  of  8  per  cent, 
$1,689,802.86. 

Or  suppose  the  Government  (leaving  out  of  consideration  the  great  loss  and  dam- 
age to  the  property)  had  paid  only  $75,000,  the  sum  admittedly  saved  by  it  in  print- 
ing blanks,  etc.,  for  its  Army,  and  had  paid  it  when  the  work  was  done;  that  sum, 
if  loaned  at  interest  of  6  per  cent  and  reinvested  from  year  to  year,  would  now  equal 
$498,300.10,  and  if  loaned  at  8  per  cent  (the  prevailing  rate  in  Tennessee)  would 
equal  the  sum  of  $881,867.34. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  late  distinguished  Senator 
from  Tennessee,  the  Hon.  Isham  G.  Harris,  should  ju8.t  before  his  death  have  said 
that  "  the  $288,000,  if  paid  now,  will  give  but  a  meager  compensation  to  these  claim- 
ants for  the  use  of  and  injury  to  their  property  by  the  Army  over  thirty  years  ago." 

Senator  Harris  was  a  member  of  the  Claims  Committee  of  the  Senate  that  investi- 
gated the  subject  thoroughly  twenty  years  ago.  He  favored  the  payment  of  $288,000 
then,  and  those  who  knew  his  sterling  worth,  rugged  honesty,  and  the  painstaking 
character  of  his  labor  respecting  any  question  committed  to  his  charge  will  admit 
that  his  indorsement  puts  the  justice  of  the  claim  beyond  cavil  or  doubt. 

What  I  advise  is  that  you  at  once  apprise  the  brethren  throughout  the  South  of  the 
situation,  and  ask  them  to  again  and  at  once  write  their  Members  and  urge  them  to 
activity;  requesting  them  not  only  to  vote  for  the  bill  making  a  direct  appropria- 
tion, but  to  use  their  best  endeavor  to  secure  the  votes  of  Members  from  the  North, 
East,  and  West.  Our  Southern  Representatives  should  understand  that  if  the  bill 
fails  to  pass  it  will  be  their  fault.  These  letters  should  be  written  by  ministers,  lay- 
men, and  friends  of  Members  of  Congress,  who  have  influence  with  such  Members, 
and  they  should  be  addressed  to  such  Members  at  Washington,  D.  C.,  so  as  to  reach 


METHODIST    BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  125 

them  not  later  than  the  5th  of  January,  1898,  when  Congress  reconvenes.  The  bill 
is  likely  to  be  considered  on  the  7th,  which  is  the  first  private-bill  day  thereafter, 
and  it  is  essential  that  Southern  Members  shall  have  a  day  or  two  in  which  to  help 
work  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  with  Members  representing  the  Northern,  Eastern, 
and  Western  States. 

I  repeat,  your  matter  was  never  before  in  as  good  shape  as  now,  and  if  it  fails  to 
pass  Southern  Members  will  be  responsible  for  that  failure. 

I  write  plainly  and  urgently  because  I  am  on  the  ground,  appreciate  the  difficul- 
ties, and  am  deeply  impressed  with  the  gravity  of  the  situation.  Please  urge  the 
brethren  to  work  quickly. 

Later  on  you  shall  be  advised  of  the  result  and  the  action  of  each  individual  Mem- 
ber. Such  a  report  will  be  due  to  you  and  myself,  as  your  representative  and  friend, 
as  well  as  to  Members  of  Congress  and  their  constituents. 

Yours,  truly,  E.  B.  STAIILMAN. 

The  foregoing  statement  is  so  clear  that  comment  appears  unnecessary.  We  have 
called  on  the  brethren  for  much  help ;  all  of  which  has  been  willingly  granted,  and 
is  fully  appreciated.  We  make  this  last  urgent  appeal.  Won't  you  please  go  to 
work  immediately,  and  have  some  strong  letters  written  to  your  Members  of  Congress 
on  the  lines  indicated  by  Mr.  Stahlman? 

From  what  we  know  of  the  situation  we  are  prepared  to  concur  in  the  view  that 
if,  after  having  gotten  our  matter  in  such  excellent  shape,  we  shall  fail  to  pass  it  the 
failure  will  be  due  to  the  inactivity  of  the  Southern  Members  of  Congress. 
Yours,  truly, 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Book  Agents. 

These  letters  were,  in  tone,  very  urgent,  some  of  them  even  breathing 
threats  that  if  I  did  not  give  attention  to  the  claim  in  a  proper  manner 
it  would  be  recollected  against  me  in  the  following  election.  It  was, 
of  course,  very  annoying  that  I  had  to  answer  so  many  of  these  letters, 
assuring  the  writers  that  I  was  heartily  in  favor  of  the  claim  and 
would  give  it  my  support. 

Senator  PASCO.  Were  you  friendly  to  the  claim  before  you  received 
those  letters? 

Mr.  SIMS.  Yes,  indeed;  and  was  doing  all  I  could  for  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  want  to  show  whether  it  was  in  consequence  of 
these  letters  that  you  pushed  the  claim. 

Mr.  SIMS.  No,  sir.  The  letters  were  simply  an  annoyance,  and 
caused  considerable  feeling  among  the  Southern  Members  in  the  House, 
especially  among  the  Members  from  Tennessee.  I  think  we  all  felt 
there  was  something  in  those  letters  in  the  nature  of  a  threat,  and 
some  of  the  Members  got  up  a  letter  in  regard  to  the  matter,  which  was 
published  in  the  Nashville  American.  After  this  occurred  I  received 
a  card  one  afternoon  from  Mr.  Stahlman,  to  whom  I  had  previously 
been  introduced.  I  went  out  and  met  him  at  the  east  door  of  the 
Capitol.  He  said  that  he  wanted  to  talk  with  me  about  those  letters, 
saying  that  he  told  Barbee  &  Smith  that  I  was  in  favor  of  the  claim. 
I  said  to  him  that  the  letters  had  been  annoying  and  that  there  was 
considerable  feeling  worked  up  in  the  House  about  them.  He  went  on 
and  stated  in  substance  that  he  did  not  intend  to  injure  any  Member 
with  his  constituents,  or  to  take  any  unnecessary  strictures  upon  Mem- 
bers; that  he  was  here  upon  other  business  for  the  Nashville  and 
Chattanooga  Railway  Company,  which  he  would  talk  to  me  about  at 
some  convenient  time;  that  being  here  on  other  business,  being  a 
member  of  the  church,  his  wife  being  a  member  of  the  church,  and 
being  friendly  to  the  church  and  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  he  was  doing 
what  he  could  for  the  claim. 

He  said  that  he  had  no  other  interest  in  the  claim  except  as  a 
member  of  the  church  and  as  being  friendly  to  the  church.  I  rather 
commended  him  for  his  action  in  the  matter,  and,  as  he  had  always  been 
a  strong  Democrat  until  the  recent  election,  and  had  then  become  a 
strong  leading  Eepublican  in  the  State,  I  thought  (although  I  did  not 
8.  JRep.  1416 9 


126  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

so  state  to  him)  that  he  could  do  a  good  deal  of  good  by  talking  with 
the  Republicans  from  the  North  about  the  claim.  While  we  were 
standing  there  Colonel  Cox,  the  Eepresentative  from  the  Seventh  dis- 
trict, came  along.  Stahlinan  said,  "  Colonel  Cox,  1  want  to  see  you  a 
minute."  Colonel  Cox  turned  around  very  angrily.  He  had  his  walk- 
ing stick  in  his  hand,  and  he  spoke  very  offensively  to  Mr.  Stahlman, 
saying  that  he  did  not  want  to  see  him  or  to  have  anything  to  do  with 
him.  Mr.  Stahlman  made  some  remark  that  was  not  offensive  in  its 
nature,  but  Colonel  Cox  told  him  never  to  speak  to  him  again,  and  that 
he  never  wanted  to  have  anything  more  to  do  with  him.  Colonel  Cox 
went  on.  I  felt  a  little  excited,  and  I  suppose  Mr.  Stahlman  did.  I 
was  afraid  of  a  personal  difficulty.  Something  was  said  about  Colonel 
Cox  showing  his  anger  and  the  conversation  ceased.  That  night  or 
the  next  night  Colonel  Baker  carne  into  the  Yarnum  Hotel  and  called 
for  Colonel  Cox,  and  he  and  Colonel  Cox  went  to  the  latter's  room. 
After  they  had  been  there  some  time  I  was  sent  for.  There  was  no 
one  present  then  but  Colonel  Cox,  Colonel  Baker,  and  myself.  They 
were  talking  about  this  matter,  and  the  question  of  a  large  amount  of 
money  to  be  paid  to  Stahlman  in  case  the  bill  passed  was  being  dis- 
cussed. I  had  heard  that  on  the  floor  myself,  and  Mr.  Eichardson  said 
he  had  heard  it. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  mean  that  you  had  heard  it  in  debate? 

Mr.  SIMS.  No;  Justin  conversation.  I  was,  therefore,  interested  in 
the  statement  that  was  being  made  by  Colonel  Baker  to  Colonel  Cox. 
Colonel  Baker  said  that  there  was  no  percentage  or  commission  on  that 
claim  to  be  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman  or  to  anybody  else. 

Senator  CLAY.  Who  is  Colonel  Baker? 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  He  is  the  man  who  testified  before  the  com- 
mittee the  other  day,  and  to  whom  Mr.  Stahlman  paid  $10,000. 

Senator  PASCO.  His  statement  was  that  $10,000  had  been  paid  him 
for  services  in  this  and  other  cases. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  In  this  case  and  in  a  railroad  case. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Mr.  Baker  was  trying  to  placate  Colonel  Cox  and  to  get 
him  in  better  humor  toward  Stahlman.  That  seemed  his  object  and 
purpose.  In  reply  to  a  question  by  Colonel  Cox,  Mr.  Baker  said,  as  I 
remember  positively  (if  I  am  wrong  about  that,  I  am  entirely  wrong), 
that  there  was  no  contract  to  pay  any  commission  or  percentage;  that 
expenses  were  to  be  paid,  and  that  in  case  the  bill  passed  a  reasonable 
compensation  was  to  be  given  for  loss  of  time  and  for  services  rendered. 
Colonel  Cox  then  said  to  him,  "  What  is  reasonable  compensation  ?  What 
do  you  understand  by  that  f  What  does  it  mean  I "  Colonel  Baker  said, 
"  Well,  I  should  say  that  if  the  bill  passed  we  should  get  $2,500  apiece. 
Major  Stahlman  and  I  have  exactly  the  same  contract."  Colonel  Cox 
said,  "That  would  be  $5,000."  Colonel  Baker  said,  "Yes."  Colonel 
Cox  said,  "That  will  be  reasonable;  nobody  could  object  to  the  claim 
on  that  ground."  I  said,  "Certainly  not."  Thereupon  I  went  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  among  members  and  told  them  I  had  it  both  from 
Stahlman  and  Baker  that  there  was  no  commission  or  percentage  to  be 
paid,  and  that  the  entire  amount  was  going  to  the  book  agents,  and  the 
profits  were  going  to  the  widows  and  orphans  and  the  superannuated 
ministers.  I  was  very  earnest  in  the  matter  and  was  very  anxious  to 
pass  the  bill.  I  had  received  so  many  letters  about  it — coaxing,  threat- 
ening, and  otherwise — that  I  gave  it  a  great  deal  of  attention. 

Mr.  Gaines,  who  sat  next  to  me,  stated  to  Mr.  Eichardson  and  myself 
that  Stahlman  was  getting  absolutely  nothing;  that  he  had  been  so 
informed  by  Barbee  &  Smith.  From  Baker's  statement  and  from  this 


METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  127 

statement,  I  did  not  hesitate  to  use  every  effort  that  I  could  to  dis- 
abuse the  minds  of  members  of  the  House  of  any  feeling  in  the  case, 
and  to  show  to  them  that  it  was  purely  a  matter  of  charity  and  that 
the  money  was  going  to  charitable  purposes  only.  I  am  not  undertak- 
ing to  give  the  exact  language  used.  After  the  meeting  of  the  con- 
ference at  Baltimore,  and  after  hearing  whispers  that  a  large  fee  had 
been  paid,  some  members  of  the  House  began  to  talk  to  me  and  rather 
guy  me  and  gag  me  about  it,  and  I  felt  considerably  hurt.  There  was 
a  publication  in  the  Washington  Post  which  I  cut  out  and  inclosed  to 
Barbee  &  Smith  asking  them  to  give  me  a  statement.  My  letter  to 
them  is  as  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  May  SI,  1898. 
Messrs.  BAKBEE  &  SMITH, 

Agents,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

DEAR  SIRS  :  Inclosed  find  clipping  from  the  Washington  Post,  which  speaka  for 
itself.  Please  give  me  a  full  statement  as  to  the  amounts  paid  Stahlman  or  anyone 
else.  I  want  such  a  statement  as  can  go  into  the  Record.  The  investigation  by 
Congress  is  almost  certain  to  follow.  If  these  rumors  are  trne  as  to  paying  Stahl- 
man or  any  number  of  persons  35  per  cent  of  this  claim,  every  cent  of  the  $288,000 
ought  to  be  paid  back  to  the  United  States. 

No  honorable  use  could  have  been  made  of  so  large  a  sum  in  securing  the  passage 
of  the  bill.  This  was  no  case  of  an  ordinary  claim  of  an  individual  before  the 
Court  of  Claims  in  which  large  conditional  fees  are  paid,  but  it  was  a  sacred  trust 
fund  to  be  devoted  to  charitable  purposes.  Both  Major  Stahlman  and  Colonel  Baker 
claimed  that  no  commissions  or  percentage  of  this  claim  were  to  be  paid  to  anyone, 
and  upon  that  authority  I  assured  many  Members  that  the  rumor  that  had  obtained 
to  that  effect  was  not  true.  It  would  have  been  impossible  to  have  secured  the 
passage  of  the  bill  had  not  such  assurances  been  given.  Members  were  deceived  and 
caused  to  vote  for  the  bill  in  this  way,  and  they  feel  that  the  wrong  should  be 
righted  and  the  Treasury  placed  in  statu  quo. 

There  is  a  cloud  of  scandal  now  hanging  like  a  black  pall  over  the  dome  of  the 
Capitol.  I  hope  you  will  do  all  you  can  to  remove  it. 

Yours,  truly,  T.  W.  SIMS. 

Senator  STEWART.  Did  you  get  a  reply  to  that  letter? 
Mr.  SIMS.  I  got  a  reply  dated  Nashville,  June  10, 1898,  the  envelope 
in  which  it  was  inclosed  being  postmarked  June  14.    The  letter  reads 
as  follows : 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  June  10, 1898. 
Hon.  T.  W.  SIMS, 

Member  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

SIR  :  Your  letter  of  May  31  came  to  hand  by  due  course  of  mail.  It  was  couched 
in  such  extraordinary  language  and  contained  so  many  unwarrantable  insinuations 
and  demands  that  we  have  been  debating  in  our  minds  whether  or  not  you  were 
entitled  to  any  reply  whatever;  and  now  that  we  are  promised  an  investigation  by 
a  Congressional  committee  of  all  the  facts  relating  to  the  payment  of  our  claim  we 
have  concluded  to  refrain  from  saying  anything  until  this  investigation  shall  have 
been  had.  When  the  investigation  is  completed  we  shall  give  you  such  an  answer 
as  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  demand.  We  shall  probably  do  so  at  a 
later  period,  whether  the  investigation  is  had  or  not. 
Respectfully, 

BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Book  Agents. 

I  had  no  idea  of  being  offensive  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  from  the  fact 
that  I  did  not  believe  it  true.  Mr.  Stahlman  did  not  use  the  words  that 
he  was  not  to  be  paid,  but  he  said  that  he  was  here  on  other  matters 
and  that  the  only  interest  he  had  in  the  claim  of  the  Methodist  Church 
was  as  a  member  of  the  church,  and  I  had  no  doubt  that  the  fact  was 
that  way.  I  even  thought  that  the  expenses  that  were  to  be  paid  by 
the  church  were  to  be  paid  out  of  some  other  fund.  Mr.  Stahlman  had 
said  that  he  had  no  interest  in  the  matter  except  that  he  was  a  member 
of  the  church  and  that  his  wife  was  a  member  of  the  church. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  you  inferred  from  that  that  he  had  no  pecuniary 
interest  in  the  claim  ? 


128  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

Mr.  SIMS.  Certainly;  although  no  fee  was  talked  about.  Colonel 
Cox  did  mention  it  to  Colonel  Baker,  and  Colonel  Baker  stated  that 
there  was  no  percentage  to  be  paid,  but  that  expenses  and  loss  of  time 
were  to  be  paid  for. 

Mr.  Eichardson  had  heard  of  it,  and  we  did  all  that  we  could  to  keep 
down  the  rumor.  Mr.  Dalzell  stated  in  the  House  that  it  had  been  the 
most  persistently  lobbied  claim  that  had  ever  been  before  Congress.  I 
was  very  glad  to  have  Mr.  Stahlman  and  Mr.  Baker  aid  us  in  influencing 
the  vote,  but  I  thought  they  were  all  being  moved  by  the  same  consid- 
erations. Mr.  Gaines  also  showed  me  a  letter  (I  think  before  the  claim 
came  up  in  the  House)  from  Barbee  &  Smith,  stating  among  other  things 
that  Mr.  Stahlman  was  in  Washington,  and  that,  in  connection  with  a 
large  number  of  other  matters,  he  was  giving  their  matter  some  atten- 
tion. I  give  that  as  a  matter  of  memory;  but  all  of  this  impressed  me 
with  the  idea  that  Mr.  Stahlman's  business  here  was  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  advocating  this  claim,  and  that  what  he  was  doing  for  it  he 
was  doing  from  a  sense  of  duty  and  from  a  desire  to  benefit  the  church. 
I  had  no  knowledge  at  the  time  the  bill  passed  the  House  of  what  took 
place  in  the  Senate.  I  know  now,  because  I  have  read  a  good  deal 
about  it,  but  I  did  not  know  at  the  time. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  Did  you  make  any  reply  to  that  letter  of 
Barbee  &  Smith  to  you  indicating  that  your  letter  to  them  was  offensive  1 

Mr.  SIMS.  When  I  got  their  letter  it  looked  as  if  they  were  offended. 
I  had  not  retained  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  them.  I  wrote  to  them  and 
said  that  my  letter  was  not  intended  to  be  offensive;  that  I  had  not 
retained  a  copy  of  it,  and  asked  them  to  send  me  a  copy.  They  sent 
me  this  copy,  which  I  have  put  in  evidence  and  which  I  have  no  doubt 
is  correct.  I  never  knew  anybody  in  Tennessee  who  stood  any  higher 
than  Dr.  Barbee.  I  did  not  know  anything  about  Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  say  that  this  conversation  with  Mr.  Baker  about 
the  $2,500  was  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Stahlman? 

Mr.  SIMS.  No ;  it  was  in  the  presence  of  Colonel  Cox.  Mr.  Baker  had 
come  to  see  Colonel  Cox. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  And  you  understood  him  to  say,  when  the  question 
was  put  to  him  direct,  that  he  supposed  that  $2,500  would  be  reason- 
able? 

Mr.  SIMS.  He  stated  that  if  the  bill  did  not  pass  expenses  were  to  be 
paid,  and  that  if  the  bill  did  pass  a  reasonable  compensation  was  to  be 
paid.  Then  Colonel  Cox  asked  him  what  he  regarded  as  a  reasonable 
compensation.  He  said,  "I  should  say  $2,500  for  myself  and  the  same 
for  Mr.  Stahlman."  I  admit  that  I  felt  a  little  more  kindly  to  Baker 
than  I  did  to  Stahlman,  because  Baker  had  not  written  any  letters  or 
given  me  any  annoyance. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  How  long  had  you  known  Baker  to  have  been  working 
on  the  claim  ? 

Mr.  SIMS.  I  did  not  know  it  until  this  session  of  Congress.  If  I  had 
ever  heard  of  it,  I  had  forgotten  it. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  Was  there  any  mention  made  of  Stahlman 
on  the  floor  of  the  House,  or  of  Barbee  &  Smith? 

Mr.  SIMS.  Not  in  debate.  It  was  talked  of  on  the  floor  among  mem- 
bers in  a  conversational  way.  If  their  names  were  mentioned  in  debate 
I  do  not  recollect  the  fact.  Of  course,  in  the  debate  the  names  of 
Barbee  &  Smith  as  book  agents  were  frequently  mentioned. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  I  understand  you  to  say  that  in  conversation  with 
Stahlman  the  term  "fee"  was  not  used  at  all? 

Mr.  SIMS.  No;  his  statement  to  me  was  voluntary.    I  did  not  ask 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  129 

him  the  question.  I  understood  his  statement  to  be  in  explanation  of 
this  circular  letter  which  I  have  presented,  and  to  prove  that  he  did 
not  want  to  hurt  anybody's  feelings;  that  he  was  here  on  other  matters, 
and  that  the  only  interest  he  had  in  this  claim  was  as  a  member  of  the 
church  and  on  account  of  his  wife  being  a  member  of  the  church. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  The  conversation  then  was  merely  in  relation  to  the 
matter  generally? 

Mr.  SIMS.  Yes. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  You  were  smarting  under  these  letters? 

Mr.  SIMS.  Yes;  we  all  were.  There  were  indignation  meetings  in  the 
cloak  room  frequently.  When  I  wrote  that  letter  to  Barbee  &  Smith 
I  heard  that  there  was  going  to  be  an  inquiry  in  the  House.  Mr.  Dal- 
zell  said  something  about  it,  and,  not  believing  a  word  of  the  charge,  I 
wanted  a  letter  from  Barbee  &  Smith  which  could  go  into  the  Itecord 
and  perhaps  stop  further  trouble. 

Adjourned  till  Tuesday,  July  5, 1898. 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  July  5, 1898. 
The  committee  met  pursuant  to  adjournment. 
Present:  Senators  Teller  (chairman),  Stewart,  Pasco,  and  McLaurin. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  N.  N.  COX. 

Hon.  N.  N.  Cox,  Kepresentative  from  the  State  of  Tennessee,  sworn 
and  examined. 

Senator  PASCO.  State  your  position  and  residence. 

Mr.  Cox.  I  am  a  member  of  Congress  from  the  State  of  Tennessee. 
I  live  20  miles  from  Nashville,  the  city  in  which  the  book  publishing 
house  is  located. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  understand  the  circumstances  under  which  this 
investigation  is  being  held  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes ;  I  understand  them. 

Senator  PASCO.  State,  in  your  own  language  and  in  your  own  way, 
any  knowledge  you  may  have  in  regard  to  the  statement  of  Barbee  & 
Smith,  the  book  agents,  and  Mr.  Stahlman,  their  agent  and  attorney, 
in  reference  to  any  contract  that  was  made  by  them  or  any  conversa- 
tion you  may  have  had  relating  to  that  contract. 

Mr.  Cox.  The  best  way  to  state  it,  so  far  as  my  knowledge  goes,  is 
this :  The  claim  was  not  new  to  me.  It  has  been  in  Congress  ever  since 
I  have  been  here.  The  first  thing  that  attracted  my  attention  espe- 
cially about  it  during  the  present  session  was  a  circular  purporting  to 
come  from  the  Methodist  Publishing  House,  and  which,  as  E  read  it  and 
considered  it,  was  rather  an  indirect  charge  on  Southern  Members  of 
the  House — not  merely  on  Members  from  Tennessee,  but  on  Southern 
Members  generally — that  they  had  not  been  performing  their  duty  in 
regard  to  this  matter.  That  was  the  first  information  I  had  that  Mr. 
Stahlman  had  any  connection  with  the  claim,  as  his  name  was  men- 
tioned in  that  circular. 

It  brought  forth  a  great  many  letters  written  to  us  by  friends  in  our 
districts,  urging  us  to  try  to  get  the  claim  through,  and  all  that  sort 
of  thing.  Quite  a  number  of  us  felt  very  much  annoyed  (I  know  that  I 
did)  at  having  such  an  attack  made  upon  us.  One  day  I  was  in  the  House 
and  stepped  out  of  the  Hall  and  I  found  Mr.  Sims  talking  to  Mr. 
Stahlman.  As  I  was  passing  by  Stahlman  spoke  to  me  and  I  think  I 


130  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH. 

can  give  about  the  exact  words  that  passed.  I  said  to  him,  "The 
course  you  have  pursued  is  unwarranted  and  I  feel  that  you  have  treated 
us  very  wrongly,  and  all  that  I  desire  to  say  to  you  is  this,  do  you 
never  speak  to  me  and  I  will  never  speak  to  you  any  more."  I  walked 
out  of  the  Hall,  and  I  never  have  spoken  to  Mr.  Stahlman  since,  and 
never  expect  to. 

Senator  STEWART.  What  time  was  this? 

Mr.  Cox.  It  was  while  the  bill  was  in  the  House,  during  the  present 
session  of  Congress,  before  it  got  to  the  Senate.  The  first  or  second 
night  after  that,  Col.  Jack  Baker  (a  personal  friend  of  mine  whom  I 
have  known  a  long  time)  came  to  my  room  at  my  hotel.  The  first  part 
of  the  conversation  that  passed  between  Colonel  Baker  and  myself  was 
in  regard  to  the  rather  hard  talk  that  I  had  had  with  Stahlman.  Baker 
seemed  to  be  trying  to  smooth  that  over;  we  ended  that  pretty  quick. 

I  told  him  I  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  Stahlmau,  and  1  told  him 
my  opinion  of  Stahlman.  I  said,  "so  far  as  the  claim  is  concerned  I 
have  examined  it.  I  think  it  a  just  claim.  I  think  that  the  Govern- 
ment owes  it,  and  1  shall  vote  for  the  bill."  Just  about  that  time  Mr. 
Sims,  who  had  felt  very  much  touched  by  these  circulars,  and  who 
boarded  at  the  same  hotel,  came  to  my  room  (I  had  sent  for  him),  and 
the  conversation  turned  on  the  fee  of  the  parties  who  were  represent- 
ing this  claim.  I  understood  Colonel  Baker  to  be  one  and  Mr.  Stahl- 
man to  be  the  other.  I  knew  of  no  one  else  in  the  matter,  and  had 
never  heard  of  the  other  men  until  this  investigation  sprung  up. 

As  I  recollect  the  conversation  it  was  this:  I  asked  Mr.  Baker  what 
was  the  arrangement  about  the  fees.  He  told  me  that  they  were  to  be 
paid  their  expenses  if  they  did  not  get  the  claim  through,  and  that  if 
they  did  get  it  through  they  were  to  have  a  reasonable  fee.  I  said 
to  Colonel  Baker,  "What  do  you  regard  as  a  reasonable  fee?"  He 
replied  to  me  that  he  thought  about  $2,500  each,  or  $5,OUO  would  be 
reasonable. 

Senator  PASCO.  That  is,  $5,000  for  the  two? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes;  I  had  in  my  mind  only  two.  I  did  not  know  any- 
body else  was  concerned,  i  remarked  to  Colonel  Baker,  "If  that  is  all 
that  is  to  be  taken  out  of  the  fund  I  do  not  think  that  any  reasonable  man 
would  complain."  I  never  had  had  a  word  of  talk  with  Stahlman  about 
the  matter — I  mean  the  fee.  I  had  got  it  on  my  mind,  somehow,  that 
there  was  a  written  contract  between  Stahlmau  and  the  publishing 
committee,  but  I  can  not  state  distinctly  that  I  had  been  told  so.  I  got 
the  impression,  somehow,  but  I  understood  that  Baker's  fee  was  to  be 
the  same  as  Stahlman's,  $2,500.  Mr.  Sims  heard  all  that  passed  in  that 
conversation.  I  heard  his  statement  read  he  made  here  the  other  day, 
and  it  was  substantially  the  same,  as  I  remember  the  facts. 

Senator  PASCO.  Where  did  that  conversation  take  place? 

Mr.  Cox.  In  my  room  at  the  Varnum  Hotel. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  Mr.  Baker  claim  that  he  was  interviewing  you 
in  Mr.  Stahlmau's  interest? 

Mr.  Cox.  No;  Baker  and  I  have  been  friends  a  long  time.  We  have 
known  each  other  a  number  of  years.  He  was  somewhat  mortified  that 
there  had  been  any  unpleasantness  between  Stahlman  and  myself. 

Senator  PASCO.  He  did  not  claim  to  come  from  Stahlman  to  try  and 
settle  matters  with  you? 

Mr.  Cox.  No.  He  said  that  he  regretted  that  anything  had  occurred 
between  us.  I  did  not  ask  him  whether  Stahlman  sent  him  or  not. 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  know  anything  further  in  connection  with 
that  branch  of  the  case? 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  131 

Mr.  Cox.  No  sir;  I  do  not  know  anything  else  of  my  own  knowledge. 
I  know  of  quite  a  number  of  things  that  were  said  by  Stahlman. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  .Not  to  you? 

Mr.  Cox.  No,  sir;  no;  I  stopped  that  part  of  the  business  early. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  As  to  those  circulars  that  you  got;  did  I 
understand  you  to  say  that  they  were  either  sent  by  Stahlman  or  had 
any  reference  to  him,  or  did  they  purport  to  emanate  from  the  book 
agents'? 

Mr.  Cox.  There  is  one  of  them  in  the  record,  in  Mr.  Sims's  testimony. 
One  of  them  went  to  Mr.  Eichardson's  district,  in  which  he  was  named. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  In  the  one  you  received  Stahlman  was  not  named  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  The  circular  seemed  to  be  based  on  a  letter  written  to  the 
book  committee,  or  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  and  then  a  paragraph  or  circu- 
lar was  issued  in  connection  with  Stahlman's  letter,  and  his  name 
appears  as  signing  the  first  letter. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  What  I  want  to  get  at  is  whether  Mr.  Stahlman  is 
referred  to  at  all  in  the  circular.  I  understood  you  to  say  in  relation 
to  the  circulars  which  came  from  your  district  that  Stahlman  was 
referred  to. 

Mr.  Cox.  Stahlman  writes  the  letter  to  Nashville,  and  then  this  little 
circular  comes  out  with  it  with  no  signature.  That  refers  to  Stahl- 
man's letter,  and  the  letter  and  these  circulars  came  all  together. 
These  little  circulars  came  from  the  publishing  house,  as  1  take  it. 
They  were  not  sent  by  anybody.  The  House  of  Representatives  was 
flooded  with  these  things  and  a  great  many  of  our  members  were  right 
smartly  agreed  about  it  that  it  was  rather  an  attack  upon  them. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  When  did  you  first  come  to  Congress? 

Mr.  Cox.  In  the  Fifty-  second  Congress. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  And  this  claim  was  pending  in  the  House  then? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes.  It  had  been  here  in  two  shapes.  One  of  the  bills 
that  was  introduced  proposed  to  refer  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims. 
The  other  bill  was  to  make  an  appropriation  direct.  It  has  always 
been  before  the  Committee  on  War  Claims  in  our  House. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  When  did  you  first  examine  the  claim? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  think  I  looked  into  it  pretty  early  after  I  came  here. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  After  you  first  came  to  Congress? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes;  our  ministers  at  home  called  our  attention  to  it. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  gave  it  a  pretty  fair  examination  ? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  satisfied  myself  about  the  justice  of  the  claim. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  That  it  was  a  legal  demand  against  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  thought  so,  and  I  think  so  yet. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  And  you  so  expressed  yourself? 

Mr.  Cox.  Yes;  I  never  hesitated  about  it.  I  would  not  have  voted 
for  it  if  I  had  not  thought  it  to  be  a  iust  claim. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  To  what  do  you  attribute  the  great  delay  in  the  passage 
of  the  bill? 

Mr.  Cox.  It  was  like  a  great  many  other  bills — some  of  them  as  just 
bills  as  can  be.  It  is  hard  after  a  bill  has  got  out  of  committee  to  get 
it  up  for  consideration  in  the  House.  That  has  almost  always  got  to  be 
done  by  unanimous  consent.  The  Calendar  gets  loaded  down  with 
bills;  and  any  one  member  can  stop  the  passage  of  a  bill  by  a  single 
objection.  There  are  claims  pending  there  for  a  great  deal  longer  time 
than  I  have  been  in  Congress,  and  which  have  had  no  consideration. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  How  long  have  you  been  in  Congress? 

Mr.  Cox.  I  entered  in  the  Fifty-second  Congress. 


132  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 


TESTIMONY  OF  SENATOR  BATE. 

The  Hon.  WILLIAM  B.  BATE,  Senator  from  the  State  of  Tennessee, 
sworn  and  examined : 

Senator  PASCO.  You  know  all  about  the  purpose  of  this  investigation, 
and  I  think  that  the  best  way  is  for  you  to  go  on  in  your  own  way  and 
tell  all  about  your  connection  with  the  matter,  relating  especially  to 
the  contract  between  the  book  agents  and  Mr.  Stahlman,  and  to  any 
conversation  or  communication  you  may  have  had  with  any  of  them  in 
relation  to  it,  taking  up  such  other  matters  as  you  may  think  pertinent 
to  the  case. 

Senator  BATE.  I  have  no  set  statement  to  make.  I  thought  the 
committee  would  ask  me  questions  and  I  would  answer  them.  I  know 
somewhat  of  the  matters  to  which  you  refer  by  virtue  of  my  position 
here  in  the  Senate.  I  know  nothing  of  it  outside  of  what  has  tran- 
spired here. 

Senator  PASCO.  When  did  you  first  introduce  the  bill? 

Senator  BATE.  It  was  some  years  ago;  I  can  not  give  the  date. 

Senator  PASCO.  You  have  been  in  the  Senate  about  eleven  years  ? 

Senator  BATE.  Yes. 

Senator  PASCO.  And  you  introduced  the  bill  in  the  first  Congress 
that  you  were  here? 

Senator  BATE.  In  the  first  or  the  second  Congress;  and  it  was  intro- 
duced consecutively,  I  believe,  every  Congress  since.  Once  I  introduced 
a  bill  making  an  appropriation  of  $150,000  under  some  arrangement 
that  had  been  made,  of  which  I  knew  nothing.  I  had  been  communi- 
cated with  by  some  friend  asking  me  to  introduce  it.  I  think  it  was 
Hon.  Joe  E.  Washington.  Subsequently  I  was  informed  that  was  not 
the  amount  that  the  book  agents  were  claiming,  and  I  then  introduced 
a  bill  appropriating  $288,000. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  $150,000  was  the  amount  recommended  in  the 
Morgan  report. 

Senator  BATE.  I  don't  remember  as  to  that,  but  I  introduced  the 
bill  for  $288,000,  and  I  introduced  it,  as  I  remember,  consecutively 
every  Congress  after  that. 

Senator  PASCO.  What  personal  communications  did  you  have  from 
time  to  time  with  the  book  agents  in  regard  to  the  matter? 

Senator  BATE.  Not  a  great  many.  There  was  a  sort  of  lull  or  quiet 
about  it  when  they  found  out  that  it  could  not  be  passed  just  then; 
but  in  the  last  two  or  three  years  the  public  sentiment  and  the  senti- 
ment in  the  Senate  and  House  seemed  to  change  in  regard  to  matters 
of  this  kind,  and  then  we  all  took  a  greater  interest  in  the  matter.  My 
communications  with  the  book  agents  were  very  limited.  There  were 
some  few  letters  passed  asking  me  how  the  bill  was  getting  on,  or  if 
anything  could  be  done;  something  of  that  kind,  but  nothing  of  any 
great  importance  until  the  last  year  or  so. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  ever  have  any  personal  interviews  with  the 
book  agents  in  the  city  of  Nashville? 

Senator  BATE.  No;  and  when  I  look  back  on  it  now  I  am  surprised 
that  we  did  not  have  interviews  there.  I  was  generally  busy  when 
there.  I  am  not  sure  but  that  Mr.  Barbee  may  have  called  to  see  me 
once,  but  I  know  that  I  never  had  any  conversation  with  any  of  them 
in  Nashville  about  the  claim. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  the  subject  of  a  compensation  to  the  attorney  or 
attorneys  ever  come  up  between  you  and  them,  prior  to  the  investiga- 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  133 

tion  which  occurred  immediately  preceding  the  passage  of  the  bill  in 
the  Senate? 

Senator  BATE.  No,  sir ;  not  with  Barbee  &  Smith,  that  I  remember. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  ever  have  a  conversation  or  correspondence 
with  Stahlman  relative  to  compensation  prior  to  the  time  when  the  bill 
was  up  in  the  Senate? 

Senator  BATE.  No  written  or  telegraphic  communication  that  I  know 
of,  but  I  had  conversations  with  him  two  or  more  times.  I  think  I 
recollect  two  conversations  that  I  had  with  him  touching  the  matter,  and 
I  think  that  the  subject  was  alluded  to  perhaps  on  several  occasions.  I 
board  at  the  Ebbitt  House,  and  Mr.  Stahlman  used  to  be  about  there 
in  the  evenings.  I  often  met  him  in  the  lobby  of  the  office  there.  As 
to  the  exact  date,  I  can  not  give  it  except  in  this  way:  It  was  within 
the  last  year  or  two.  One  thing  that  calls  it  to  my  memory  particularly 
is  the  fact  that  another  party  was  indirectly  connected  with  it.  Mr.  J. 
W.  Baker  and  I  were  sitting  side  by  side  in  the  hotel  office  one  evening, 
and  Mr.  Baker  broached  the  subject  in  regard  to  the  claim.  I  asked 
him  what  he  had  to  do  with  it.  He  said  that  he  felt  an  interest  in  it, 
and  that  he  was  looking  after  it  to  some  extent.  I  asked  him  if  he  was 
to  be  paid,  or  if  he  was  a  lobbyist.  I  believe  that  was  my  phrase.  He 
said  no,  but  that  he  expected  a  reasonable  compensation.  I  asked  him 
if  there  was  any  agreement  about  it.  He  said  no,  there  was  no  under- 
standing as  to  the  amount  or  anything  of  that  kind,  but  he  supposed 
he  would  receive  a  reasonable  compensation,  though  there  was  no  con- 
tract or  definite  understanding.  He  left  the  impression  on  my  mind 
that  his  expenses  were  to  be  paid,  and  perhaps  a  small  fee.  I  refer  to 
Baker. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  Called  "Jack,"  for  short? 

Senator  BATE.  Yes.  Mr.  Stahlman  was  sitting  at  this  time  opposite 
us  on  another  chair  in  the  same  lobby.  Baker  made  some  remark  about 
Stahlman  being  very  active,  and  I  said,  "Yes,  but  without  compensa- 
tion." I  can  only  give  you  the  substance  of  the  conversation.  I  said 
"Yes,  but  without  compensation."  Said  he,  " How  do  you  know  that?" 
I  said,  "  He  told  me  so."  "Well,"  Jack  remarked, "  Stahlman  is  a  pretty 
old  coon;  he  does  not  generally  work  for  nothing."  That  aroused  my 
suspicion  a  little.  I  said,  "If  he  gets  anything  out  of  that  claim  I  do 
not  know  it,  for  he  told  me  that  he  took  an  interest  in  it  simply  because 
he  and  his  wife  were  members  of  the  church,  and  because  he  was  a  near 
neighbor  and  intimate  friend  of  Mr.  Barbee's,  and  that  he  was  here  in 
Washington  on  railroad  matters  all  the  while,  nearly,  and  took  an 
interest  in  this  claim  on  account  of  his  relations  with  the  church  and 
Mr.  Barbee."  I  stated  that  to  Baker. 

Presently  the  man  who  was  talking  to  Stahlman  got  up  and  left  his 
seat  vacant,  and  I  got  up  and  said  to  Jack,  "  Well,  I  will  see  about  it  now." 
I  went  straight  to  where  Stahlman  was,  and  we  entered  into  conversa- 
tion, talking  about  this  church  bill.  I  said  to  him,  "  I  suppose  you  have 
no  interest  in  the  matter,  have  you?"  He  remarked,  "Except  that  I 
am  a  member  of  the  church,  and  my  wife  is  a  member  of  the  church, 
and  I  feel  an  interest  in  it  and  I  want  to  do  what  I  can  for  it.  I  am 
here  on  railroad  matters,  you  know,  and  I  want  to  help  this  claim  all 
I  can;  and  besides,  Mr.  Barbee  is  my  neighbor  and  friend."  He  said 
that  to  me  in  substance,  and  I  went  to  Jack  and  told  it  to  Baker. 

That  was  probably  about  a  year  or  more  ago.  It  was  about  the  time 
that  our  centennial  was  going  on  or  some  of  its  business  was  before 
Congress.  Major  Thomas  had  been  here  and  Thomas  had  told  me  that 
Stahlman  was  looking  after  some  matters  for  him.  I  think,  however, 


134          METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

that  it  was  just  before  or  soou  after  the  time  when  Stahlman  went 
before  the  Committee  on  Claims — most  likely  afterwards.  I  should  say, 
however,  that  for  reasons  I  had  avoided  having  anything  or  but  little 
to  do  with  Major  Stahlman  about  the  matter  until  I  heard  him  before 
the  Committee  on  Claims.  I  do  not  know  whether  any  of  you  gentle- 
men of  the  committee  were  present  at  the  time  when  he  made  his 
statement. 

Senator  STEWART.  I  was  there. 

Senator  BATE.  My  recollection  is  that,  instead  of  either  Senator 
Harris  or  myself  presenting  the  case  to  the  committee,  Senator  Harris 
said,  "  Here  is  Mr.  Stahlman,  who  knows  more  about  it  than  either  of 
us.  Hear  him."  Stahlman  stepped  up  and  said,  "  I  have  nothing  to 
do  with  it,  except  that  I  am  a  friend  of  the  church  and  that  I  under- 
stand the  matter.  I  am  no  lawyer  in  it."  Then  he  was  told  to  go  on 
and  he  took  his  seat  and  gave  a  version  of  the  matter  in  a  very  clear 
and  lucid  manner. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  was  not  present  at  that  meeting  of  the  committee. 

The  (  'HAIRMAN.  His  statement  made  the  impression  on  me  that  he 
had  no  fee. 

Senator  BATE.  He  said  so,  as  I  best  recollect  now. 

Senator  STEWART.  The  impression  was  that  he  appeared  as  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church. 

Senator  BATE.  I  think  you  heard  him  so  state. 

Senator  STEWART.  Be  said  that  the  interest  he  had  in  it  was  that 
he  was  a  member  of  the  church.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  stated 
positively  that  he  had  no  interest,  but  he  left  that  impression. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  were  all  under  that  impression. 

Senator  BATE.  That  was  one  conversation  that  I  had  with  Major 
Stahlman — I  mean  the  Baker  conversation — and  it  left  a  very  clear  and 
distinct  understanding  on  my  mind.  I  do  not  pretend  to  use  the  lan- 
guage, but  I  have  given  the  impression  it  made  on  me.  As  I  say,  I 
went  back  and  said  to  Baker,  "I  told  you  that  you  were  mistaken,  and 
that  he  is  doing  this  without  any  fee." 

Senator  PASCO.  That  brings  us  to  the  time  when  the  bill  was  being 
pressed  before  the  Senate,  immediately  prior  to  its  passage.  State  the 
facts  in  connection  with  the  telegrams. 

Senator  BATE.  Before  I  get  to  that  let  me  go  on  a  little  further  in 
answer  to  a  former  question.  A  few  days  before  the  time  you  speak  of 
I  met  Major  Stahlman  again  in  front  of  the  hotel.  He  was  looking 
very  actively  after  this  matter  and  was  very  efficient,  as  I  recollect — 
outside,  at  least — in  getting  up  information,  preparing  documents, 
writing  letters,  etc. ;  at  least  I  understood  so.  I  asked  him  what  the 
chances  were  for  the  House  bill.  He  said  he  had  been  just  up  to  see 
Senator  Lindsay  or  Senator  Foraker — or  perhaps  both  of  them — in 
regard  to  it. 

I  then  spoke  to  him  of  what  I  had  heard :  That  he  had  been  talked 
about  for  having  a  fee  in  the  matter — a  very  high  fee.  Representative 
Gaines  and  perhaps  Representative  Sims  had  been  talking  to  me 
about  it.  I  asked  him  again,  "Is  there  any  mistake  about  that?" 
He  said,  "I  have  nothing  to  do  with  it  except  that  I  am  a  friend  of  the 
parties  and  I  want  to  do  what  I  can  for  the  church.  I  am  a  member  of 
it."  He  talked  in  the  same  way  as  he  had  done  before.  I  can  not 
recollect  now  that  I  had  any  other  conversation  with  him  about  it 
until  the  vote.  One  reason  was  that  he  had  told  me  twice  that  he  had 
no  interest  except  as  I  already  stated,  and  I  did  not  think  it  delicate 
or  proper  for  me  to  go  and  see  him  about  it  again. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  135 

That  is  one  reason  why  I  suggested  that  Senator  Bacon  should  go 
and  have  a  conversation  with  him  when  the  rumor  was  out  that  Stahl- 
mau  was  to  receive  a  compensation  of  40  per  cent.  I  suggested  to 
Senator  Bacon,  Senator  Clay,  and  perhaps  half  a  dozen  other  Senators 
to  go  and  have  a  personal  interview  with  Stahlinan  and  to  let  us 
know  the  truth  of  the  matter.  Senator  Bacon  can  speak  for  himself; 
he  came  back  and  reported  what  he  had  heard  from  Major  Stahlman. 
That  is  all  that  I  have  to  say  about  it,  unless  the  committee  want  to 
ask  me  questions. 

Senator  PASCO.  Give  an  account  of  what  occurred  the  day  prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  bill  in  the  Senate. 

Senator  BATE.  There  came  to  be  a  good  deal  of  excitement  about  it 
in  the  Senate,  and  much  uneasiness.  The  Southern  Senators,  all  of 
them  I  believe,  and  some  others,  favored  the  bill  and  felt  more  or  less 
solicitude  about  it.  There  had  been  efforts  made  by  someone,  through 
Barbee  &  Smith,  to  get  united  action  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  rep- 
resentatives, and  they  all  felt  an  interest  in  it.  This  rumor  came  up 
when  we  thought  it  was  very  damaging  if  it  was  true,  and  we  set  about 
to  get  at  the  bottom  of  it  and  see  whether  it  was  true  or  not.  By  way 
of  ascertaining,  I  went  to  Senator  Pasco,  who  had  the  bill  in  charge, 
and  had  a  conversation  with  him  about  it,  and  he  told  me  he  had  writ- 
ten a  letter  to  Barbee  &  Smith.  I  said,  "That  is  exactly  right,  we  will 
get  the  truth  of  it  now."  I  said  nothing  more  about  it  until  about  the 
7th  of  March.  The  rumor  was  still  rife  and  Senator  Pasco  had  not 
received  an  answer  to  his  letter,  as  I  understand.  By  way  of  hurrying 
up  the  answer  in  part,  and  by  way  of  getting  one  to  me  also — as  my 
telegram  shows — I  telegraphed  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  as  follows: 

WASHINGTON,  March  7, 1898. 
BARBEE  &  SMITH,  Nashville,  Tenn. : 

Telegraph  to-day  answer  to  Senator  Pasco's  letter  to  you  Saturday  as  to  Stahlman 
having  fee  of  40  per  cent  or  any  other  fee  in  case  of  payment  of  your  claim.  I  would 
like  to  hear  from  yon  also.  In  my  judgment,  if  true,  it  will  endanger  the  bill. 

WM.  B.  BATE. 
And  here  is  the  response  to  it: 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  7,  1898. 
Hon.  WM.  B.  BATE  : 

We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m.  as  follows:  "The  statement  is  untrue 
and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it." 

BARBEK  &  SMITH. 

I  showed  that  reply  to  several  Senators — I  think  to  Senator  Clay, 
Senator  Kyle,  and  others  who  sat  near  me — and  I  left  it  in  their  hands, 
I  think,  or  else  in  my  drawer.  I  do  not  recollect.  I  referred  to  it  in 
the  speech  that  I  made.  It  was  around  at  Senator  Stewart's  seat  that 
I  spoke,  my  desk  being  at  the  other  side  of  the  chamber.  I  did  not 
have  the  telegram  with  me  and  did  not  read  it,  but  I  stated  the  sub- 
stance in  my  remarks  to  the  Senate. 

NASHVILLE,  TENN.,  March  7, 1898. 
Hon.  WM.  B.  BATE  : 

It  was  in  these  words:  "We  wired  Senator  Pasco  early  this  a.  m.  as  follows: 
'The  statement  is  untrue,  and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it.'" 

BARBEE  &  SMITH. 

Senator  Pasco  came  along  afterwards,  and  during  his  speech  he  read 
the  telegram  that  he  had  received.  In  sending  that  telegram  I  was 
seeking  to  get  at  the  facts  in  plain,  simple  terms,  whether  or  not 
Stahlman  had  any  agreement  with  them  for  a  fee  or  for  any  kind  of 
compensation.  I  knew  that  he  was  acting  for  them  and  that  he  was 
their  friend,  and  that  perhaps  he  might  be  paid  his  expenses.  I  did 


136  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

not  know  anything  about  that,  but  I  was  trying  to  get  at  the  facts 
whether  there  was  a  contract  involving  the  percentage  of  the  claim. 
This  is  the  telegram  I  sent  in  plain  terms  and  there  is  the  answer  to  it, 
and  I  submit  that  if  any  of  the  attorneys  present,  or  anyone  else  who 
can  read  that  language,  will  take  it  with  the  surroundings,  he  will  say 
that  I  was  thoroughly  justified  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  I  did — that 
there  could  be  no  compensation.  I  so  believed  it,  and  I  so  stated  it  to 
the  Senate. 

I  was  dealing  with  men  who  were  my  friends,  plain  and  honest  busi- 
ness men.  1  used  plain,  expressive  language  in  that  dispatch.  I  did 
not  think  that  I  was  dealing  with  a  diplomat — Talleyrand  or  a  Machia- 
velli — who  used  words  to  conceal  ideas;  but  I  wanted  a  plain,  honest 
answer  to  the  question,  and  I  got  it  in  such  terms  as  were  perfectly  sat- 
isfactory to  me.  I  stated  the  facts  to  the  Senate,  and  I  believed  it  when 
I  so  stated  it — knowing  the  men  as  I  did — that  there  was  no  contract. 
But  I  was  misled;  and  not  only  so,  but  I  was  partly  instrumental  in 
misleading  the  Senate — or  a  part  of  the  Senate,  at  least — of  course,  inno- 
cently. I  saw  no  guile  in  the  matter  and  suspected  none. 

I  wanted  a  plain  answer,  and  I  thought  I  got  it,  and  I  presented  it 
to  the  Senate.  The  Senate  went  with  us  almost  unanimously.  I  was 
very  much  pleased  with  it,  and  was  grieved  for  anything  to  have 
occurred  since  to  bring  any  slander  on  anybody,  or  any  scandal,  espe- 
cially on  the  church.  I  was  a  friend  of  the  church.  I  do  not  belong 
to  it — my  wife  does.  Our  children,  both  living  and  dead,  were  bap- 
tized in  it,  and  I  was  and  am  its  friend  and  wanted  to  do  what  I  could 
for  it,  both  as  Senator  and  friend. 

Mr.  HAWKINS  (counsel).  There  is  not  a  man  in  Tennessee,  whether  a 
political  friend  or  a  political  enemy,  who  does  not  know  that  you  would 
make  no  statement  in  the  Senate  that  you  did  not  actually  believe. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  communicate,  either  orally  or  by  letter,  with 
Barbee  &  Smith  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  as  to  the  use  that  was 
made  of  their  telegram  to  you? 

Senator  BATE.  So,  sir. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  inform  them  of  the  passage  of  the  bill? 

Senator  BATE.  I  do  not  remember.  The  fact  was  telegraphed  in  the 
papers  that  night.  I  got  a  telegram  the  next  day  from  Mr.  Barbee; 
thanks  and  congratulation  was  the  substance  of  it.  You  asked  me 
about  communications.  It  is  proper  I  should  say  to  you  that  I  got  a 
telegram  from  Dr.  Barbee  from  Bryan,  Tex.,  dated  December  10,  1897. 
I  have  the  telegram  here  and  will  read  it  to  the  committee. 

BRYAN,  TEX.,  December  10, 1897. 
Senator  W.  B.  BATE,  Washington,  D.  C. : 

Your  telegram  mailed  me  here.  Confer  with  Stalilman,  who  understands  case 
thoroughly  and  has  full  authority. 

J.  D.  BARBEE. 

That  telegram  was  in  response  to  one  from  me  asking  Mr.  Barbee  to 
come  here.  I  afterwards  sent  the  following  to  Mr.  Smith : 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  December  8, 1897. 
To  BARBEE  &  SMITH, 

Methodist  Publishing  House,  NtuhviUe,  Tenn.  : 

Am  glad  to  tell  yon  that  my  colleague,  Senator  Turley,  and  myself  went  before  the 
Committee  on  Claims  this  morning  and  were  successful  in  our  effort  to  get  the  claim 
of  the  Southern  Methodist  Publishing  House  through  the  committee  with  favorable 
report  for  full  amount  of  $288,000,  and  also  succeeded  in  getting  it  placed  in  the 
omnibus  bill  which  will  be  favorably  reported  to  the  Senate,  and  I  hope  and  believe 
we  can  get  it  through  the  Senate  this  session.  This  supersedes  the  necessity  of 
you  or  Dr.  Barbee  being  here  now. 

WM.  B,  BAT*. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  137 

My  prior  telegram  was  for  him  to  come  here.  Not  hearing  from  it  I 
sent,  in  a  day  or  so  afterwards,  the  one  just  read.  There  was  a  crisis  in 
the  history  of  the  bill  at  that  time.  We  wanted  the  claim  put  into  what 
is  known  as  the  "omnibus  bill,"  and  not  only  that,  but  there  was  a  dispo- 
sition in  the  House  not  to  let  the  claim  go  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  as 
directed  by  the  Senate.  I  had  previously  called  it  up  and  had  it  put 
through  the  Senate,  that  is,  the  bill  to  send  it  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  It 
was  in  the  House  at  the  time  and  the  question  in  my  mind  was  whether 
it  was  better  to  let  the  claim  go  to  the  Court  of  Claims  or  take  the  chance 
of  putting  it  on  the  "  omnibus  bill"  authorized  by  the  Senate  to  be  gotten 
up  by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Claims — including  this  kind  of  claims. 
I  concluded  to  take  both  chances,  and  I  sent  Dr.  Barbee  a  telegram 
asking  him  to  come  here  and  advise  with  me  about  it. 

Let  me  explain  this.  I  had  been  told  before  about  Mr.  Stahlman's 
relation  to  the  claim — that  he  was  merely  acting  as  a  friend.  Dr.  Bar- 
bee  had  some  letters  or  telegrams  from  me  when  he  was  at  Roanoke, 
Va.,  attending  a  conference,  as  I  now  recall  it.  This  was,  perhaps,  a 
year  or  two  ago.  He  came  on  to  Washington  and  came  to  my  room 
and  sat  with  me  some  time,  and  we  talked  the  matter  over.  He  never 
told  me  a  word  about  any  contract  with  Stahlman — neither  did  he  deny 
it — for  I  understood  that  there  was  none,  and  I  did  not  ask  him  the 
question.  Dr.  Barbee  had  control,  as  I  understood  it,  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter, and  I  wanted  him  to  come  here  and  to  go  before  the  committee. 

I  had  about  that  time  a  telegram  from  Dr.  Summy,  of  Clarksville,  in 
regard  to  a  like  claim  for  his  Presbyterian  Church.  Under  my  advice 
he  came  here  and  I  introduced  him  to  the  committee  and  he  got  his  bill 
right  through.  When  he  first  came  he  asked  me  if  it  was  necessary 
for -him  to  have  an  agent  or  lawyer,  and  I  said  no,  that  he  was  better 
without  one.  Then  I  telegraphed  Dr.  Barbee  to  come.  He  came,  but 
he  did  not  stay  long,  and  I  did  not  get  a  chance  to  introduce  him  to  the 
committee.  I  am  not  positive  as  to  the  relative  dates  of  these  two 
transactions— of  the  coming  of  Summy  and  Barbee.  I  had  this  conver- 
sation with  him.  He  did  not  say  a  word  to  me  or  I  to  him  about  a  con- 
tract, but  recognizing  him  and  knowing  him  to  be  the  chief  of  the  book 
concern,  I  telegraphed  him,  and  here  is  his  answer : 

BRYAN,  TEX.,  December  10, 1897. 

Your  telegram  mailed  me  here.  >  Confer  with  Stahlman,  who  understands  case 
thoroughly  and  has  full  authority. 

Now,  Major  Stahlman  had  told  me  that  he  was  a  friend  and  was  act- 
ing as  a  friend  only,  and  I  understood  this  telegram  to  mean  Stahlman 
has  full  authority  as  a  friend,  not  as  our  attorney  or  our  agent.  That 
is  the  way  I  understood  it  and  I  so  acted  upon  it.  I  never  talked  to 
Stahlman  about  this  telegram,  except  on  meeting  him  one  day  I  men- 
tioned the  fact  that  I  had  received  a  telegram  from  Dr.  Barbee  in  Texas ; 
he  said,  "So  have  I."  That  was  all  that  was  said,  so  I  treated  this  as 
simply  informing  me  that  Stahlman  was  their  .friend,  and  that  as  their 
friend  he  could  represent  them. 

I  have  looked  at  the  printed  report  of  the  testimony  by  permission, 
and  I  find  on  page  82,  in  the  statement  of  Dr.  Denny,  this  sentence : 
"  We  do  not  see  how  Senator  Bate,  who  was  in  charge  of  the  claim, 
could  have  fallen  into  the  remarkable  error,  as  stated  in  the  Congres- 
sional Record,  'I  want  to  say  in  that  connection  that  this  fund  is  to 
be  payable  to  all  alike;  the  Northern  Church  and  the  Southern  Church 
are  all  to  share  alike.'"  I  do  not  know  that  I  had  a  chance  to  correct 
that  report  in  the  Record.  It  is  printed  as  the  reporter  took  it  down. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Is  that  the  way  it  appears  in  the  Record? 


138  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH. 

Senator  BATE.  Yes,  sir.  My  understanding  was,  and  is  now,  that 
there  are  some  churches  in  the  North  that  belong  to  the  Methodist 
Church  South. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  That  is  true. 

Senator  BATE.  And  there  are  some  Northern  churches  in  the  South. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Yes;  a  large  number. 

Senator  BATE.  I  simply  mean  there  that  these  churches  located  in  the 
North  that  are  associated  with  the  churches  South  would  have  an  equal 
chance  with  the  churches  located  in  the  South.  That  is  what  I  meant, 
and  that  is  what  I  understood  to  be  the  truth. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  We  have  several  churches  in  Colorado  which  are 
connected  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South. 

Senator  BATE.  I  did  not  understand  that  the  Northern  churches 
located  in  the  South  would  get  any  of  it,  but  I  supposed  that  those  in 
the  North  that  were  connected  with  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
South  were  entitled  to  their  share,  and  I  made  no  distinction  in  politics; 
whether  ^Republican,  Democrat,  Populist,  or  Prohibitionist,  all  were  to 
share  alike. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  It  is  perfectly  apparent  that  Dr.  Denny  so  under- 
stood it. 

Senator  BATE.  Yes;  and  I  felt  that  the  learned  doctor  was  "sticking 
in  the  bark"  unnecessarily,  in  order  to  criticize  me  a  little.  He  is 
welcome  to  do  so. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  The  telegram  that  was  sent  by  Barbee  &  Smith  to 
Senator  Pasco  on  March  7,  "Have  asked  Mr.  Stahlman  to  call  at  once 
and  see  you.  He  is  a  gentleman  on  whom  you  may  rely."  Was  that 
dispatch  shown  to  you? 

Senator  BATE.  I  can  not  remember.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was 
or  not,  but  it  certainly  was  not  before  I  sent  mine.  I  did  see  it  after- 
wards, but  I  do  not  know  when.  I  did  not  see  it  that  day,  as  I  recol- 
lect it. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  It  seems  that  it  was  telegraphed  at  1.15  p.  m.  on 
March  7. 

Senator  BATE.  I  am  unable  to  tell  you  as  to  the  time. 

Senator  CLAY.  This  telegram  of  March  7  to  you  reads:  "We  wired 
Senator  Pasco  early  this  morning,  as  follows:"  'The  statement  is 
untrue  and  you  are  therefore  authorized  to  deny  it.'"  I  have  got  it  on 
my  mind  that  there  were  some  additional  words  suggesting  to  you  to 
see  that  telegram  which  was  sent  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  BATE.  They  start  out  by  saying  "  we  wired." 

Senator  CLAY.  I  thought  there  was  a  direction  to  you  to  see  that 
dispatch  to  Senator  Pasco. 

Senator  BATE.  I  took  that  as  a  direction ;  and  I  went  and  saw  it,  too. 
I  went  to  Senator  Pasco  immediately  when  I  got  it,  and  I  saw  the  tele- 
gram to  him.  That  is  my  recollection. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  Did  you,  as  a  lawyer,  examine  this  claim  ? 

Senator  BATE.  Not  as  thoroughly,  perhaps,  as  some  persons  did;  faut 
I  examined  it. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  satisfied  yourself  that  it  was  a  just  and  legal  claim  f 

Senator  BATE.  As  much  so  as  any  I  ever  saw.  And  not  only  that, 
I  think,  and  have  always  thought,  that  the  best  thing  for  that  institu- 
tion was  to  send  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  The  proof  satisfied 
me  thoroughly  that  they  had  a  claim  of  $400,000  or  $450,000.  The 
truth  is  that  the  items  which  they  gave  and  presented  amounted  to 
$458,000,  and  I  did  not  see  why  any  of  those  items  should  be  turned 
off.  I  felt  that  if  the  claim  was  carried  to  the  Court  of  Claims  and 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  139 

properly  presented  and  argued  they  would  have  got  $458,000,  or  some- 
thing near  it. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  If  it  had  gone  to  the  Court  of  Claims  would  there  not 
have  been  greater  delay,  owing  to  the  fact  that  after  the  court  rendered 
its  decree  it  might  not  be  approved  and  paid  by  Congress  for  years? 

Senator  BATE.  Yes ;  I  thought  there  was  something  in  that.  That 
was  a  matter  of  consultation  between  Senator  Harris  and  myself,  the 
morning  we  came  before  this  committee.  We  finally  concluded  that  the 
best  thing  to  be  done  would  be  to  send  tbe  matter  to  the  Court  of  Claims. 
One  of  the  reasons  why  we  hesitated  about  it  was  the  great  delay.  I 
subsequently  saw  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Court  of  Claims,  and  he 
gave  me  information  which,  if  I  had  had  it  at  the  time,  would  have  led 
me  to  insist  on  its  going  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  He  said  that  the  great 
delay  there  was  not  in  the  court  itself,  which  kept  up  with  everything 
that  was  prepared  by  the  attorneys,  and  I  knew  that  this  matter  was 
prepared. 

Senator  CLAY.  I  find  the  great  delay  to  be  after  the  court  renders 
its  decree. 

Senator  BATE.  My  relations  with  these  parties  have  been  pleasant. 
My  relations  with  Mr.  Stahlman  have  been  strained,  growing  out  of 
politics.  1  did  not  have  much  to  do  with  him,  however.  I  rather 
steered  clear  of  him ;  but  not  after  the  question  came  up  here  and  after 
he  told  me  that  he  had  no  pecuniary  interest  in  the  claim.  Then  I 
determined  to  give  any  assistance  I  could  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  When  you  got  that  answer  from  Barbee  &  Smith,  the 
safety  which  you  felt  in  recommending  the  claim  was,  in  great  measure, 
the  high  character  of  those  two  gentlemen? 

Senator  BATE.  Yes;  I  would  have  relied  on  anything  they  told  me. 
As  I  have  said,  I  did  not  think  that  I  was  dealing  with  diplomatists. 
My  relations  with  them  were  exceedingly  pleasant.  I  did  not  know  Mr. 
Smith  much,  only  from  reputation — that  he  had  a  good  reputation.  I 
knew  Dr.  Barbee  well;  I  heard  him  preach  twenty  years  ago,  I  think, 
and  lived  in  same  city  with  him. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  If  you  had  known  of  the  existence  of  this  contract  at 
35  per  cent  when  the  debate  occurred  in  the  Senate,  what  would  have 
been  your  action? 

Senator  BATE.  I  do  not  think  I  would  have  voted  for  the  bill.  I  do 
not  know  what  I  would  have  done  under  the  embarrassment,  but  I  do 
not  think  I  would  have  voted  for  it. 

Mr.  HAWKINS.  You  said  you  introduced  this  bill  frequently.  Can 
you  tell  how  it  happened  that  it  had  not  passed? 

Senator  BATE.  I  gave  you  the  reason  a  while  ago.  At  that  time 
there  was  a  sentiment  in  the  Senate  and  in  the  country  against  such 
bills,  but  in  the  last  few  years  that  sentiment  had  changed,  and  finally 
the  time  came  when  we  thought  we  could  win. 


STATEMENT  OF  SENATOR  PASGO. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  have  been  a  member  of  this  committee  ever  since 
I  came  to  the  Senate,  eleven  years  ago,  and  quite  early  in  my  member- 
ship this  claim  was  referred  to  me  as  a  subcommittee.  It  was  in  the 
first  or  second  Congress  after  I  came  here,  probably  the  latter.  Senator 
Bate  introduced  a  bill  providing  for  its  payment  upon  each  occasion, 
and  I  think  he  continued  to  introduce  it  in  every  Congress  after  we 
came  here,  for  we  came  to  the  Senate  at  the  same  time.  He  says  that 


140          METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

he  thinks  he  introduced  it  in  his  second  Congress,  and  probably  that  is 
correct;  and  in  every  subsequent  Congress  he  again  introduced  a  bill 
in  the  same  terms.  The  matter  was  discussed  occasionally  between  us, 
but  I  felt  that  if  the  bill  were  pressed  to  a  vote  it  would  be  defeated,  so 
that  it  was  considered  best  to  delay  action,  hoping  for  a  more  liberal 
sentiment,  and  that  we  might  get  a  favorable  report  at  a  later  date. 
That  opportunity  seemed  to  occur  in  the  spring  and  early  summer  of 
1896.  In  each  Congress  there  seemed  to  be  a  softening  of  the  feeling 
between  the  North  and  the  South  and  the  conditions  gradually  to  become 
more  favorable.  The  bill  was  then  reported  by  me  to  the  full  commit- 
tee. I  heard  that  Mr.  Stahlman  was  present  before  the  committee 
before  the  bill  was  reported,  but  if  so  1  was  not  present  at  that  meet- 
ing. The  question  as  to  whether  the  committee  should  recommend  the 
bill  came  up  when  I  was  present. 

There  were  three  propositions  before  the  committee:  One  which  I 
was  urging  for  an  appropriation  of  $288,000;  one  which  was  urged  by 
other  Senators,  appropriating  $150,000,  the  amount  that  had  been 
recommended  in  the  Morgan  report  twenty  years  before;  and  one 
referring  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  The  $150,000  proposition 
prevailed,  and  I  was  authorized  to  prepare  a  report.  Before  I  did  so  I 
communicated  with  Senator  Bate,  and  he  with  the  book  agents.  I  told 
him  that  I  thought  it  would  be  possible  to  get  a  recommendation  from 
the  committee  to  refer  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  but  that  at 
that  time  the  $288,000  proposition  would  not  be  entertained,  and  there 
was  no  use  in  expecting  it.  I  thought  it  better  to  take  the  fixed  sum 
of  $150,000,  for  I  had  very  grave  doubts  as  to  whether  there  would  be 
any  success  in  pressing  the  claim  before  the  Court  of  Claims.  But  the 
decision  was  otherwise.  The  book  agents  communicated  with  Senator 
Bate,  and  said  that  they  would  rather  have  a  bill  to  refer  the  claim  to 
the  Court  of  Claims  than  a  bill  appropriating  $150,000,  and  I  withheld 
the  report  until  that  message  was  received.  I  brought  the  matter  up 
again  in  the  committee  at  a  later  date,  and  the  committee  agreed  that 
the  former  action  should  be  reconsidered,  and  that  a  bill  should  be  pre- 
pared referring  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims. 

My  recollection  is  that  Senator  Bacon  was  at  that  time  associated 
with  me  as  a  member  of  the  committee,  and  it  was  under  his  direction, 
and  probably  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  Stahlman  (though  I  had  no  direct 
information  about  that),  that  the  bill  was  prepared.  When  it  was  ready 
it  was  presented  in  the  committee  room,  and  a  -favorable  report  was 
authorized.  I  then  prepared  the  report  (No.  865,  Fifty-fourth  Congress, 
first  session),  and  it  was  presented  to  the  Senate  on  the  5th  of  May, 
1896.  It  was  when  I  began  to  prepare  that  report  that  for  the  first 
time  I  had  communication  with  the  book  agents,  and  it  was  for  the 
purpose  of  getting  some  further  information  than  I  had  in  order  to  pre- 
pare my  report.  I  wanted  to  get  the  articles  of  incorporation,  the  his- 
tory of  the  book  concern,  their  form  of  government,  etc.,  in  order  that 
I  might  enter  more  fully  into  the  history  and  legal  relations  of  the  mat- 
ter, and  they  sent  me  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference,  their 
Book  of  Discipline,  and  a  copy  of  the  legislative  proceedings  when  the 
charter  was  granted,  and  perhaps  some  other  documents.  They  sent 
them  to  me  by  express.  I  had  promised  to  take  special  care  of  them, 
for  there  is  no  duplicate  of  some  of  the  documents.  It  was  with  them 
and  with  the  aid  of  the  Morgan  report  that  I  prepared  my  report.  I 
pursued  the  course  which  I  usually  take.  I  prepared  the  report  myself, 
and  got  my  data  from  these  different  sources.  The  Morgan  report  was 
very  full,  and  stated  the  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  very 


METHODIST   BOOK    CONCERN    SOUTH.  141 

clearly.  I  used  also  the  petition  of  the  book  agents  of  December  1, 
1875.  These,  with  the  documents  from  Nashville  and  the  papers  on  file, 
enabled  me  to  present  the  case  as  I  did  in  the  report. 

This  bill  referring  the  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims  passed  the  Senate, 
but  did  not  pass  the  House,  and  in  the  next  Congress  the  matter  again 
came  up  for  action.  We  again  passed  the  bill  referring  it  to  the  Court 
of  Claims,  and  when  the  omnibus  bill  was  prepared  we  also  put  the  claim 
in  that  bill,  but  provided  for  its  settlement  by  the  payment  of  $288,000. 
The  bill  that  became  a  law  came  over  from  the  House  of  Kepresentatives. 
It  was  passed  there  by  a  large  majority.  It  was  while  it  was  pending 
before  the  Senate  that  the  letter  was  written  by  me  asking  about  the 
contract  for  compensation,  which  has  been  already  referred  to.  I  had 
very  little  intercourse,  if  any,  with  Mr.  Stahlman  at  any  time.  When 
I  first  found  out  that  he  was  here  acting  as  a  friend  of  the  bill  I  under- 
stood that  he  was  an  employed  agent.  I  had  never  been  told  so  by  any- 
body, but  I  had  that  impression  and  did  not  feel  drawn  toward  him  at 
all  and  had  very  little  communication  with  him.  Subsequently  I  learned 
that  he  was  not  an  employed  attorney,  but  still  I  never  had  much  con- 
versation with  him  relative  to  the  claim.  The  rumors  in  reference  to 
this  contract  for  a  compensation  of  40  per  cent  were  known  here  during 
the  week  preceding  the  passage  of  the  bill.  They  gave  me  no  concern 
at  first,  because  I  was  satisfied  that  there  was  no  foundation  whatever  for 
them. 

My  understanding  from  the  charter  and  the  Discipline  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  was  that  in  order  to  have  such  a  contract  it 
must  be  first  made  by  the  book  agents  and  approved  by  the  book  com- 
mittee, and  must  then  be  subjected  afterwards  to  the  approval  of  the 
General  Conference:  and  I  did  not  believe  it  possible  for  a  very  large 
amount  of  this  special  fund  to  be  disposed  of  unless  the  General  Con- 
ference first  approved  of  its  disposition.  So  I  thought  that  from  the 
want  of  power  in  the  book  agents  such  a  contract  was  impossible; 
and  then  it  looked  to  me  like  an  absolutely  unreasonable  amount,  and 
I  felt  that  the  story  originated  with  some  malicious  persons  who  wanted 
to  prejudice  the  passage  of  the  bill.  Mr.  J.  W.  Baker  came  into  my 
room  at  the  Maltby,  I  think  the  very  day  that  I  wrote  that  letter  to 
Barbee  &  Smith.  Mr.  Baker  and  I  were  young  men  together,  though 
he  is  younger  than  I  am.  He  had  formerly  lived  in  my  county.  His 
sister  was  my  nearest  neighbor — Mrs.  Dr.  Taylor — and  his  father  used 
to  be  judge  in  our  circuit. 

Mr.  Baker  belonged  to  an  excellent  family  in  Florida.  He  was  very 
highly  respected  during  his  residence  there,  and,  since  I  came  here  to 
Washington,  when  he  has  been  in  the  city  he  has  often  called  upon  me 
in  a  social  way.  He  was  here  when  the  Nashville  Exposition  proposi- 
tion was  before  Congress,  coming  as  one  of  the  influential  citizens  of 
that  city.  At  various  other  times  he  has  been  here,  and  we  have  fre- 
quently met  together.  I  told  him  at  the  time  I  have  mentioned  of  the 
report  which  I  had  heard  with  reference  to  it,  and  stated  that  I  did  not 
think  it  possible.  I  gave  my  reasons  for  it,  and  I  asked  him  if  he  knew 
anything  about  it.  He  says  in  his  testimony  that  he  had  sometimes 
talked  to  me  of  his  own  compensation.  If  he  did  it  was  upon  that 
occasion.  He  assured  me  that  there  was  no  foundation  for  any  such 
story.  He  felt  that  if  there  was  any  such  contract  as  that  Mr.  Stahl- 
man would  have  communicated  it  to  him,  as  he  was  intimate  with  him, 
and  he  told  me  that  he  had  no  idea  that  any  contract  existed  between 
Stahlman  and  the  book  agents  for  the  payment  of  any  sum.  He  said 
that  he  expected  to  get  some  compensation  himself  j  that  he  could  not 
S.  Kep.  1416 10 


142  METHODIST    BOOK    CONCERN   SOUTH. 

afford  to  stay  here  for  nothing;  but  he  never  mentioned  the  amount 
which  he  expected.  He  said  to  me:  "It  is  easy  enough  to  find  out  the 
truth  of  the  matter;  you  can  telegraph  to  Barbee  &  Smith."  I  said: 
"  I  am  not  going  to  telegraph  to  them,  but  I  will  write  to  them,  because 
I  can  state  the  matter  more  fully  by  letter  than  by  telegram,  and  there 
is  abundant  time  to  get  an  answer  from  them  before  the  bill  comes  up 
for  discussion  and  action.1' 

On  the  Saturday  I  wrote  the  letter  to  Barbee  &  Smith,  which  is  in 
the  record,  asking  for  a  statement  of  the  facts  of  the  case — not  merely 
for  a  statement  as  to  whether  a  40  per  cent  fee  was  to  be  paid,  but  for 
the  "facts  of  the  case."  The  reply  was  a  little  slow  in  coming.  I  told 
General  Bate  what  I  had  done  as  soon  as  I  could  see  him  on  Monday 
morning.  He  said,  "That  is  all  right."  When  their  reply  was  slow 
in  coming  he  telegraphed  also.  Barbee  &  Smith  have  stated  that  the 
message  authorizing  me  to  deny  the  statement  was  sent  first.  Perhaps 
it  was,  but  my  impression  is  that  the  other  telegram  reached  me  first. 
However,  it  is  immaterial.  I  received  both  dispatches,  and  I  regarded 
the  first  one  as  a  full,  ample,  and  complete  denial  of  the  existence  of  a 
contract.  I  had  absolute  confidence  in  these  two  gentlemen — the  book 
agents — although  I  had  never  met  them  personally.  I  knew  their  high 
character.  Mr.  Barbee  is  a  minister  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
and  all  the  information  I  ever  had  was  that  both  were  men  of  high 
character  and  great  piety. 

It  never  entered  into  my  mind  that  there  could  be  any  withholding 
of  a  part  of  the  truth,  or  anything  akin  to  it,  in  any  communication 
from  them.  So  I  regarded  their  statement  as  the  absolute  truth,  and 
as  a  full,  candid,  and  complete  reply  to  my  letter.  I  was  strengthened 
in  that,  belief  when  they  referred  in  the  other  telegram  to  the  manner 
in  which  they  viewed  Mr.  Stahlman's  connection  with  the  case — that  he 
was  acting  from  motives  beyond  all  pecuniary  consideration.  They 
referred  me  to  him.  Mr.  Stahlman  says  that  I  talked  with  him  and  he 
with  me,  but  I  am  sure  he  is  mistaken  in  regard  to  that.  I  did  not  seek 
him;  I  did  not  care  for  his  reply.  "What  I  wanted  was  the  reply  from 
Barbee  &  Smith.  If  he  sought  me  I  have  no  recollection  that  he 
found  me  or  that  I  had  any  communication  with  him  about  that  time 
on  the  subject.  After  reading  the  telegram  to  the  Senate  I  resisted  the 
effort  to  secure  the  amendment  proposed  by  Senator  Lodge — that  the 
compensation  should  be  limited  to  $5,000.  I  was  afraid  that  if  the  bill 
went  back  to  the  House  it  might  be  delayed  and  perhaps  lost;  and 
so  much  had  been  accomplished  that  I  did  not  wish  to  run  any  risks 
whatever  in  the  case.  The  morning  after  the  passage  of  the  bill  I  wrote 
to  the  book  agents  and  told  them  of  the  use  I  had  made  of  their  tele- 
gram. That  letter  is  in  the  record. 

Later  I  received  a  letter  dated  the  29th  of  March,  which  is  in  the 
record,  and  to  which  I  replied.  In  that  letter  they  asked  my  opinion 
as  to  whether  any  money  could  properly  be  paid  for  services  as  attor- 
neys. They  made  no  mention  of  any  contract  in  that  letter,  and  of 
course  my  reply  could  not  affect  or  influence  them  at  all,  because  they 
have  testified  that  before  that  the  money  had  already  been  paid  to  Mr. 
Stahlman.  I  replied  that  I  thought  they  could  pay  compensation  to 
their  attorneys,  but  after  their  positive  denial  I  did  not  imagine  at  all 
that  any  such  extravagant  amount  was  expected  to  be  paid.  I  thought 
that  a  few  hundred  dollars,  or  a  few  thousand  dollars  at  the  most,  was 
the  amount  that  they  contemplated.  They  never  told  me  that  they 
were  to  pay  $108,000,  and  I  thought  that,  within  a  reasonable  limit,  it 
would  be  perfectly  proper  for  them  to  compensate  those  who  had  served 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  143 

them.  I  had  supposed  that  they  would  probably  pay  it  out  of  the 
church  fund.  • 

There  was  nothing  in  either  letter  to  suggest  the  payment  of  $108,000, 
nor  did  they  indicate  to  me  then  or  afterwards  that  any  such  amount 
was  in  contemplation.  I  never  did  hear,  until  the  time  the  General 
Conference  was  in  session,  any  rumors  that  this  35  per  cent  was  to  be 
or  had  been  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman.  I  think  that  Senator  Martin  was 
the  first  to  tell  me  about  it.  He  said  that  there  was  a  story  being  whis- 
pered about  that  Mr.  Stahlman  had  received  35  per  cent,  notwithstand- 
ing the  statement  made  in  the  Senate;  and  it  was  then,  for  the  first 
time,  that  I  had  any  information  that  they  had  failed  to  be  candid  with 
us  in  replying  to  my  letter  and  to  Senator  Bate's  telegram.  I  think 
that  covers  about  all  I  want  to  say. 

Mr.  OAKLAND  (counsel).  The  telegram  of  the  7th  of  March  requested 
you  to  call  upon  Mr.  Stahlman.  I  think  I  understood  you  to  state  that 
you  did  not  call. 

Senator  PASCO.  I  did  not  call  upon  him,  nor  he  upon  me.  I  did  not 
want  Stahhnan's  denial;  I  wanted  the  denial  of  the  book  agents,  and 
would  not  have  accepted  any  other.  I  had  absolute  confidence  in  their 
truth  and  honesty  and  in  their  disposition  to  tell  the  entire  truth.  I 
do  not  mean  by  saying  that  that  I  had  any  lack  of  confidence  in  Mr. 
Stahlman,  but  I  was  not  willing  to  go  to  the  Senate,  after  what  I  had 
heard,  with  the  statement  of  a  party  in  interest  and  to  state  his  denial 
of  the  fact.  I  wanted  to  have  the  statement  of  the  church  authorities 
who  were  acting  for  the  benefit  of  the  beneficiaries. 

TESTIMONY  OF  SENATOR  BACON. 

Hon.  AUGUSTUS  O.  BACON,  Senator  from  the  State  of  Georgia, 
sworn  and  examined. 

Senator  BACON.  Mr.  Chairman,  as  you  remember,  I  was  a  member  of 
this  committee  in  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  and  I  was  very  active  in 
my  efforts  to  try  to  secure  the  passage  of  this  bill.  I  was  influenced 
by  the  fact  that  after  examining  it  I  believed  it  to  be  a  just  claim;  and 
you  and  Senator  Pasco  may  remember  that  I  joined  those  who  put  the 
claim  squarely  on  the  ground  that,  under  the  law,  it  ought  to  be  allowed. 
Of  course,  we  added  to  that  the  other  grounds  as  to  the  peculiar  nature 
of  the  claimants  and  of  the  parties  to  be  benefited,  etc.  In  this  present 
Congress  I  was  not  a  member  of  this  committee,  but  I  have  been  still 
very  active  in  the  effort  to  have  the  bill  passed  by  Congress. 

In  addition  to  the  fact  that  I  thought  it  a  just  claim,  there  are  a  great 
many  members  of  that  denomination  in  my  State  who  are  men  whom  I 
esteem,  who  are  my  particular  friends,  and  from  whom  I  had  a  great  many 
appeals  for  assistance  in  the  matter.  In  addition  to  that,  I  have  known 
Mr.  Stahlman  a  long  time,  probably  fifteen  years.  He  has  been  a 
good  deal  in  my  State.  He  was  very  earnest  in  his  appeals  to  me  to 
assist  him,  and  I  think  he  recognized  the  fact  that  I  was  earnestly  and 
actively  at  work.  He  called  upon  me  for  aid  in  every  possible  way  and 
on  all  occasions.  I  never  dreamed  that  Mr.  Stahlman  had  any  pecuni- 
ary interest  in  the  matter.  During  this  Congress,  when  he  has  been 
appealing  to  me  for  aid,  I  never  once  suspected  that  he  was  pecuniarily 
interested,  and  I  never  was  so  surprised  as  I  was  when  the  claim  was 
paid  and  I  heard  that  he  had  had  this  big  fee.  He  had  always  repre- 
sented it  to  me  as  a  matter  in  which  he  was  influenced  mainly  by  the 


144          METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH. 

importunities  of  his  wife.  He  said  that  she  was  a  very  zealous  member 
of  the  church,  and  that  she  left  him  no  peace  at  all  in  her  importuni- 
ties to  give  all  his  time  and  abilities  to  try  and  secure  this  claim  for  the 
church. 

Not  to  go  through  a  long  history  of  the  matter,  I  will  say  that  a 
very  short  time  before  this  bill  was  to  be  voted  on  in  the  Senate, 
and  while  I  was  actively  working  for  it  and  talking*»with  Senators 
about  it,  both  on  my  own  side  of  the  Chamber  and  on  the  other  side. 
Senator  Fairbanks,  of  Indiana,  said  to  me,  substantially,  that  he  was 
favorably  inclined  to  the  claim  and  was  really  anxious  to  vote  for  it, 
but  that  he  had  been  informed  that  there  was  a  very  large  fee  to  be 
paid  if  this  claim  was  recovered.  I  have  forgotten  whether  he  said 
that  the  fee  was  to  be  paid  to  Mr.  Stahlman,  but  I  think  he  did.  The 
impression  was  so  strong  on  my  mind  to  the  contrary  of  that  that  I 
said  to  Senator  Fairbanks  with  much  earnestness:  "Senator,  I  am  cer- 
tain that  that  is  not  true — it  can  not  be  true — but  I  will  ascertain  defi- 
nitely and  will  inform  you  as  to  the  truth.  You  shall  not  be  in  doubt 
about  the  matter."  I  immediately  went  to  Senator  Bate  and  Senator 
Pasco,  who  were  recognized  as  the  two  Senators  who  were  in  the  lead 
in  the  matter — Senator  Bate  because  he  was  the  Senator  from  Tennes- 
see, representing  the  immediate  home  of  the  institution,  and  Senator 
Pasco  because,  as  a  representative  of  this  committee,  he  was  charged 
with  the  management  of  the  case  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  I  went  to 
those  two  gentlemen  and  I  said:  "Here  is  this  report,  and  if  it  is  true 
it  will  jeopardize  the  passage  of  this  bill.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is 
true.  I  can  not  believe  it."  They  said  to  me,  "You  should  go  and  see 
Stahlman  and  find  out  whether  it  is  true  or  not." 

Senator  PASCO.  Do  you  recollect  whether  it  was  I  who  said  that  or 
whether  it  was  Senator  Bate? 

Senator  BACON.  It  was  the  general  impression  that  I  had  from  both 
of  you. 

Senator  PASCO.  Senator  Bate  says  in  his  testimony  that  he  .sug- 
gested it  to  you,  and  I  do  not  recollect  that  I  did. 

Senator  BACON.  I  simply  remember  the  fact  that  I  stated  the  cir- 
cumstances to  you  and  Senator  Bate  and  that  the  suggestion  was  made 
to  me  to  go  and  see  Stahlman,  which  I  think  I  had  intended  to  do  at 
all  events.  I  did  see  Mr.  Stahlman  in  the  marble  room.  I  stated  to 
him  substantially  what  was  charged,  and  I  said  to  him  that  this  was 
being  stated  and  that  it  was  necessary  that  I  should  know  whether  or 
not  it  was  true.  I  said  that  I  had  to  make  a  statement  to  Senators 
with  whom  I  had  been  in  conference  and  for  whose  aid  in  the  matter  I 
had  been  appealing.  I  said  that  I  must  know  from  him  whether  this 
was  so  or  not.  I  spoke  to  him  in  a  very  different  manner  from  what  I 
ordinarily  would  do,  from  the  fact  that  for  three  years  I  had  been 
appealing  to  Senators  for  the  passage  of  this  bill,  and  I  felt  that  if 
there  was  anything  of  that  kind  I  was  entitled  to  know  it;  and  I  said, 
with  the  utmost  earnestness  and  emphasis  to  Mr.  Stahlman,  that  if  that 
was  so  I  must  know  it. 

He  said  to  me  with  just  as  much  earnestness  and  emphasis  as  was  pos- 
sible for  him  (and  you  all  know  how  emphatic  he  is)  that  there  was  not 
a  word  of  truth  in  it,  and  that  there  was  no  fee  to  be  paid  to  anybody  on 
account  of  the  bill.  He  said  that  there  would  be  some  expenses.  The 
impression  made  upon  my  mind  was  that  these  would  be  the  ordinary 
expenses  incurred  for  railroad  travel,  hotel  bills,  stenographic  services, 
and  things  of  that  kind— expenses  which  would  be  incurred  by  people 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  145 

who  were  representing,  as  a  matter  of  friendly  interest,  a  bill  where 
they  were  not  expecting  a  fee,  and  who  would  naturally  be  reimbursed 
their  expenses.  I  immediately  went  to  the  Senate  Chamber — the  Sen- 
ate being  in  session — and  I  not  only  reported  the  fact  to  Senator  Bate 
and  Senator  Pasco,  but  I  went  across  the  Chamber  and  found  Senator 
Fairbanks  and  told  him  that  I  had  the  assurance  from  Colonel  Stahlman 
that  there  was  no  fee  to  be  paid  to  anybody.  Colonel  Stahlman's  man- 
ner of  denial  was  such  as  to  impress  it  on  me  very  strongly. 

As  he  has  alluded  in  his  testimony  to  an  interview  with  me  within 
the  past  few  days,  I  will  state  what  occurred.  He  called  at  my  rooms 
(I  did  not  know  that  he  was  then  in  the  city) ;  he  had  in  his  hand  what 
I  took  to  be  a  copy  of  the  Congressional  Eecord,  and  he  said  to  me, 
"Senator,  there  is  just  a  little  difference  between  you  and  me" — refer- 
ring, as  I  then  understood,  to  my  statement  in  the  Senate.  I  inter- 
rupted him  and  said,  "Colonel  Stahlman,  there  is  no  difference,  there 
can  be  no  difference,  because  what  I  have  said  is  the  exact  truth,  from 
which  there  can  not  be  any  variation."  Said  he,  "  Listen  to  what  I  say 
and  perhaps  you  will  recognize  it.  I  did  say  what  you  represented  me 
to  have  said,  except  that  I  said  there  was  no  contract  with  the  book 
concern"  (or  with  the  book  agents,  or  whatever  it  is).  "I  did  not  say 
that  I  had  no  contract  with  Barbee  &  Smith."  Said  I,  "Colonel  Stahl- 
man, you  well  understood,  at  the  time  when  you  made  that  statement 
to  me,  that  you  intended  me  to  understand  that  there  was  no  contract 
between  the  beneficiaries  and  yourself.  So  far  as  Barbee  &  Smith  were 
concerned  I  did  not  have  them  in  my  mind,  and  I  was  drawing  no  such 
distinction,  because  at  that  time  I  did  not  know  that  such  persons  were 
in  existence,  and  their  names  had  never  been  mentioned  between  you 
and  me."  He  said,  "Yes,  I  will  admit  that  I  made  that  impression  on 
your  mind  and  that  I  intended  to  make  that  impression,  but  I  was  care- 
ful not  to  use  language  to  make  me  say  that."  That  is  the  distinction 
he  draws.  I  had  no  disposition  to  intrude  myself  in  this  matter  at  all. 
I  have  known  Colonel  Stahlman  a  long  time  and  felt  very  friendly 
toward  him,  but  I  felt,  in  view  of  the  statement  which  I  made  to  Sen- 
ators when  the  bill  was  before  the  Senate,  that  it  was  due  to  myself  to 
make  an  explicit  and  emphatic  statement  of  the  facts  to  this  committee. 
I  do  not  recollect  exactly  what  I  said  in  the  Senate  concerning  which 
Mr.  Stahlman  says  he  was  surprised. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  was  as  to  an  extortionate  fee. 

Senator  BACON.  I  would  not  have  supported  the  bill  if  I  had  thought 
af  fee  of  that  magnitude  was  to  be  paid.  That  is  what  I  meant.  1  do 
not  know  whether  the  words  I  used  in  the  Senate  were  exactly  to  that 
effect  or  not.  Of  course  the  fact  that  a  reasonable  fee  was  to  be  paid 
would  not  have  turned  me  from  supporting  the  bill,  although  the 
impression  made  on  my  mind  was  that  Stahlman  desired  to  help  the 
church  because  of  his  wife  being  a  very  zealous  member  of  it,  and 
because  of  his  extreme  desire  to  gratify  her  in  the  matter. 

Senator  PASCO.  Was  not  that  feeling  prevalent  in  the  Senate 
Chamber? 

Senator  BACON.  I  think  so,  undoubtedly.  I  never  was  more  sur- 
prised in  my  life  than  when  I  heard  of  that  fee.  If  there  had  been  a 
dynamite  bomb  shot  off  in  the  Chamber  it  would  not  have  surprised  me 
more.  The  impression  on  my  mind  to  the  contrary  had  been  so  strong 
that  I  was  shocked  beyond  all  measure  when  I  heard  of  it. 

Mr.  COLYAR  (counsel).  Did  you  give  the  claim  an  examination  1 

Senator  BACON.  Yesj  I  examined  all  the  items. 


146  METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN   SOUTH. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  And  you  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a  just  and 
legal  claim  ? 

Senator  BACON.  There  was  never  any  question  in  my  mind  about 
that.  I  can  not  be  too  plain  and  emphatic  in  that  matter.  I  not  only 
voted  for  it,  but  I  worked  for  it.  Of  course,  if  a  person  chooses  to  give 
away  half  of  what  he  gets,  that  is  his  own  aflfair.  But  the  point  about 
this  claim  was  this:  There  were  a  great  many  Senators  who  disputed 
the  fact  that  it  was  a  strictly  legal  claim,  and  who  put  their  support  of 
it  only  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  restitution  to  a  great  charitable 
institution,  which  possibly  might  not  have  been  able  to  recover  it  in 
strict  law,  and  I  felt  that  these  Senators  were  entitled  to  the  utmost 
frankness. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  I  believe  you  are  a  lawyer  ? 

Senator  BACON.  I  am  so  esteemed.  I  have  been  admitted  to  the  bar; 
but  I  know  of  a  great  many  persons  who  have  been  admitted  to  the 
bar  who  I  do  not  think  are  lawyers.  Whether  I  am  of  that  class  or  not, 
others  must  judge.  But,  so  far  as  I  am  a  lawyer,  I  think  that  that  was 
a  good  claim. 

Mr.  GARLAND  (counsel).  And  a  legal  claim? 

Senator  BACON.  Yes;  and  I  did  not  think  it  to  the  credit  of  the 
United  States  that  its  payment  was  so  long  delayed. 

REEXAMINATION  OF  J.  W.  BAKER. 

J.  W.  BAKER  recalled. 

Senator  FASCO.  Do  you  recollect  an  interview  which  Senator  Bate 
had  with  Mr.  Stahlman  at  the  Ebbitt  House  in  which  this  matter  of 
compensation  and  contract  came  up  for  discussion? 

Mr.  BAKER.  After  Major  Stahlmau  and  I  came  to  Washington 

Senator  PASCO.  When? 

Mr.  BAKER.  It  was  in  the  fall  or  winter  of  1897. 

Senator  PASCO.  Some  time  before  the  opening  of  the  present  session 
of  Congress? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Congress  was  in  session. 

Senator  PASCO.  The  present  session  of  Congress? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No;  my  recollection  is  that  it  was  the  first  session  of 
this  Congress.  I  came  on  here  to  look  after  the  Centennial  bill.  At 
the  same  time  I  was  spoken  to  in  reference  to  the  Methodist  Publishing 
House  bill.  I  spoke  to  Senator  Bate  in  regard  to  it.  It  must  have 
been  in  the  fall  of  1896.  One  evening  in  the  Ebbitt  House  Senator 
Bate  brought  up  the  question  as  to  my  being  compensated  for  my  serv- 
ices in  the  Methodist  Publishing  House  case.  I  told  him  that  Stahl- 
man and  the  agents  of  the  publishing  house  had  assured  me  that  if  the 
bill  passed  I  should  be  compensated ;  that  how  much  I  was  to  get  I  did 
not  know,  but  I  supposed  I  should  get  a  reasonable  or  good  fee. 

He  then  asked  me  what  Stahlman  was  to  receive.  I  told  him  I  did 
not  know,  but  that  Stahlman  had  told  me  he  did  not  expect  to  get  any- 
thing. I  then  suggested  to  Senator  Bate  that  Stahlman  was  standing 
just  across  the  lobby  in  the  Ebbitt  House  and  that  he  had  better  go 
and  see  him  and  find  out  from  Stahlman  himself  what  he  was  to  be 
paid.  Before  going  over  to  see  Stahlman  Senator  Bate  was  very 
emphatic  and  pronounced  in  his  expression  that  if  any  lobbyist  was  con- 
nected with  the  bill  or  if  any  large  fee  or  a  percentage  of  the  amount 
recovered  was  to  be  paid,  he  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  bill. 


METHODIST   BOOK   CONCERN    SOUTH.  147 

He  particularly  asked  me  in  regard  to  a  certain  claims  agent  in 
Washington,  and  whether  he  was  connected  with  it  or  not.  If  you 
wish  I  can  state  the  name. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  It  is  not  necessary. 

Mr.  BAKER.  This  claims  agent  had  at  one  time  some  connection 
with  this  claim.  Senator  Bate  stated  that  if  this  man  had  anything  to 
do  with  it  it  would  prejudice  the  claim  and  that  he  certainly  would  not 
allow  him  to  come  in  his  presence  or  to  talk  to  him  about  the  claim.  I 
told  him  that  I  had  never  heard  of  that  man  before;  that  I  did  not 
believe  he  had  any  connection  with 'the  claim,  but  that  I  would  find  out 
and  let  him  know.  Senator  Bate  then  went  over  and  had  some  little 
talk  with  Major  Stahlman. 

Senator  PASCO.  Did  you  hear  the  talk? 

Mr.  BAKER.  No,  sir. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  All  you  know  is  that  Senator  Bate  went  over  to 
Stahlman  ? 

Mr.  BAKER.  Yes.  He  came  back  and  told  me  what  Stahlman  had 
said. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Senator  Bate  has  testified  about  that. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  JAMES  D.  EICHABDSON. 

Hon.  JAMES  D.  EICHARDSON,  Representative  from  the  State  of 
Tennessee,  sworn  and  examined : 

The  CHAIRMAN.  State  as  to  the  correspondence  between  yourself 
and  the  book  agents  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern. 

Mr.  EICHARDSON.  The  book  agents  have  put  it  in  evidence,  but  I 
have  not  had  the  opportunity  of  refreshing  my  memory  about  it.  That 
correspondence  came  about  in  this  way :  In  December — about  the  16th — 
Mr.  Stahlman  addressed  a  letter  to  Messrs.  Barbee  &  Smith,  the 
book  agents,  in  which  he  undertook  to  give  an  account  of  the  progress 
of  the  claim.  That  letter  has  been  put  in  evidence. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Yes;  your  letter  is  in,  and  their  letter  in  reply  to  it. 

Mr.  EICHARDSON.  That  letter  was  sent  all  over  the  South,  as  I  under- 
stand it,  and  quite  largely  into  my  own  district.  There  was  put  inside 
of  this  letter  a  little  printed  slip  of  about  twelve  lines,  not  signed,  in 
which  my  name  was  used  especially.  Perhaps  I  had  better  put  it  in 
evidence,  as  that  was  the  reason  I  wrote  the  letter.  There  was  inclosed 
in  the  Stahlman  circular  that  was  sent  into  my  district  a  special  note 
designed  to  convey  to  the  people  of  my  district  the  alleged  fact  that  I 
especially  was  taking  no  interest,  or  but  little  interest,  in  the  effort  to 
pass  the  bill,  but  it  refers  to  me  in  complimentary  terms.  Here  is  the 
printed  slip : 

We  are  surprised  and  pained  to  be  obliged  to  convey  to  you  the  information  that 
your  Member  of  Congress.  Hon.  James  D.  Richardson,  is  taking  but  little  interest 
in  an  effort  to  pass  our  bill,  and  that  he  has  on  more  than  one  occasion  said  and 
done  things  calculated  to  very  much  discourage  our  friends.  He  is  a  recognized 
leader,  a  fine  parliamentarian,  and  strong  enough  to  enlist  men  to  pass  our  bill  at 
any  time,  if  he  will  undertake  to  do  so.  He  ought  to  be  written  to  and  given  to 
understand  what  is  expected  of  him.  It  will  not  be  amiss  to  send  the  pamphlet 
herewith  to  him,  which  contains  many  facts  bearing  upon  the  merits  of  our  claim. 
Please  write  and  cause  as  many  friends  as  you  may  be  able  to  write  Mr.  Richardson 
urging  him  to  activity. 

That  slip  was  handed  to  me  by  several  gentlemen  at  my  home  during 
the  Christmas  holidays,  and  quite  a  number  of  copies  of  it  were  sent 


148  METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN*  SOUTH. 

to  me  by  mail  inclosed  in  the  other  circulars.  It  annoyed  me  very 
much,  because  it  suggested  that  I  was  not  doing  my  duty,  and  was 
calling  the  attention  of  my  constituents  to  the  matter  in  an  unsigned 
note.  Feeling  the  sting  of  it  somewhat,  I  wrote  that  letter  to  Messrs. 
Barbee  &  Smith  and  wrote  a  little  stronger  one  to  Mr.  Stahlman,  in 
which  I  stated  that  injustice  was  done  me.  I  complained  considerably 
about  it,  and  said  that  the  charge  was  false  and  untrue.  I  think  those 
were  the  words  I  used  in  both  letters — the  one  to  Stahlinan  and  the  one 
to  Barbee  &  Smith,  which  is  in  the  record. 

I  received  a  reply  from  Barbee  &  Smith,  and  I  think  I  wrote  them 
again.  That  is  the  way  that  correspondence  came  about,  and  the  facts 
I  have  stated  account  for  the  tartness  of  my  letter  to  them.  It  was 
not  so  much  because  of  the  Stahlman  circular  as  because  of  that  little 
anonymous  communication  inside,  which  I  understood  was  sent  only  to 
my  district.  I  had,  during  the  month  of  December,  1897,  and  prior  to 
that  time,  and  while  the  bills  were  pending  before  the  House,  frequent 
conversations  with  Mr.  Stahlman.  I  had  at  one  time  written  for  him  a 
bill,  which  was  presented  to  the  Senate.  I  thought  at  first  that  that 
was  the  bill  which  passed  the  Senate,  but  I  am  not  sure  of  this.  It 
was  probably  during  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress.  He  was  here  giving 
attention  to  the  claim. 

I  can  not  recall  any  other  conversation  that  I  had  with  him;  but 
more  than  once  he  stated  to  me  that  he  was  not  under  any  contract 
with  the  book  agents,  but  was  doing  the  best  he  could  to  get  the  claim 
through,  because  he  was  a  friend  to  the  book  agents  and  to  the  church. 
I  remember  especially  about  that  because,  in  the  effort  to  justify  myself 
for  not  being  zealous  in  the  prosecution  of  the  claim,  as  they  seemed  to 
think  I  had  not  been,  I  mentioned  the  fact  that  Mr.  Stahlman  was 
probably  interested  by  the  hope  of  a  fee,  while  I  could  not  have  any 
consideration  of  that  kind;  and  that  I  had  church  and  school  claims 
for  my  own  district  which  I  must  look  after,  and  that,  therefore,  they 
could  not  expect  me  to  have  as  much  zeal  as  a  man  employed  in  the 
case.  That  accounts  for  that  reference  in  the  Barbee  letter  to  Mr. 
Stahlman's  compensation.  I  do  not  know  exactly  what  they  said  in 
reply,  but  it  was  to  the  effect  that  if  he  got  a  reasonable  compensation 
I  ought  not  to  complain. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  You  had  no  conversation  with  Stahlman  himself 
about  his  fee? 

Mr.  KICHARDSON.  I  did.  I  did  not  undertake  to  ask  him  what  fee  he 
was  going  to  get.  I  repeated  to  him,  in  substance,  that  I  could  not  have 
the  same  interest  or  zeal  in  the  claim,  as  I  was  to  get  no  fee,  and  I  sup- 
posed he  was.  He  said  then,  and  he  said  before,  that  his  interest  was 
not  a  pecuniary  interest  in  the  claim ;  that  his  desire  to  get  it  through 
was  owing  to  his  interest  in  the  book  agents  and  in  the  church. 

The  CHAIRMAN.  Did  you  get  the  impression  from  him  that  he  had  no 
contract  about  a  feet 

Mr.  RICHARDSON.  I  can  not  say  that  he  ever  told  me  that  he  had  no 
contract,  but  he  said  that  he  was  doing  it,  not  for  a  fee,  but  for  the  inter- 
est he  felt  in  the  book  agents  and  in  the  church,  and  that  it  was  not  the 
mere  foe  he  was  working  for.  I  can  not  say  that  he  ever  told  me  that 
he  had  no  contract.  I  felt  an  interest  in  Dr.  Barbee  especially.  He 
had  preached  in  my  town  four  years  and  had  lived  there  among  us 
and  I  had  a  very  high  regard  for  him.  He  was  in  my  law  office  a  good 
deal,  because  my  partner  was  a  prominent  member  of  his  church. 


METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SOUTH.  149 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  have  been  a  friend  of  the  bill  from  the  time  you 
first  examined  it? 

Mr.  BICHARDSON.  Yes;  and  I  had  done  all  I  could,  in  a  general 
way,  to  get  it  through;  and  that  is  the  reason  why  I  resented  the 
innuendo  that  I  was  not  doing  my  duty  in  the  matter. 

Mr.  COLYAR.  You  thought  it  a  just  and  legal  claim1? 

Mr.  EICHARDSON.  ,  Certainly  I  did.  I  spoke  for  it  on  the  floor,  and  I 
did  all  that  I  could  for  it  while  it  was  pending. 

Mr.  GARLAND.  When  did  you  first  examine  it? 

Mr.  BICHABDSON.  I  can  not  undertake  to  say.  I  served  on  the  War 
Claims  Committee  in  the  Forty-ninth  Congress,  fourteen  years  ago,  the 
first  session  I  was  in  Congress.  I  think  I  looked  at  it  in  a  general 
way  then,  and  several  times  since.  I  think  I  commenced  about  four- 
teen years  ago. 

Adjourned. 

O 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


A     000  921  783     7 


